WORD: Calling for a Scientific Paradigm Shift

hello all.
for those of you who know me just by music, this text might be a surprise.
might even be a boring surprise.
this text will deal with what i find as the need for a paradigm shift in all fields of exact sciences.
the text will be strongly based based on my book "Delta Theory : The Gift of Loki", but it incorporates newer ideas of mine as well, and has a different and more focused message.

what i claim and will try to convince you is that we simply must let go of our somewhat "safe" empirical science.
if we are to unveil the true potential of human engenuity, we must extend physics to things which by their very definitions are outside the scope of physics.

we must include metaphysics into our practical sciences.
i know this idea is something that in current academic circles is found to be unacceptable.
but the reason it is unacceptable is based on a premises that metaphysical theories cannot be tested via experiments ran in a lab.
i will not go into details about this in this text, but i have a reason to believe that this premises is false.
the reason we cannot test metaphysical theories in a lab is because we have to adopt the metaphysical premises prior to the construction of the experimentation equipment, just to believe there is any reason to build the device which will prove certain metaphysical theories as valid.
again, i do not wish to discuss this in this text and for that reason, i am not even going to try to appease any academic standards in this text.

some background in neuroscience and perhaps even quantum mechanics is required to understand such experiments, and i don't want to tire you with these subjects.

instead, what i will do is i will provide you with several examples why this is so.
on it's own, each example could possibly be resolved without a paradigm shift, but the collection of the examples will render my claims more robust.

to begin with, let's consider physics in general.
physics is used to predict how physical objects interact.
what laws govern their behavior.
and there's a seemingly obvious but important thing to understand here.

there is no physics without the way it is exists in matter.

any question in physics eventually ends up with some kind of materialistic element, on which the given physical phenomenon can be verified.
there are no experiments done with pure energy, simply because, how will you know of any physical event that has transpired, without it somehow changing your materialistic instrumentation?
even when experiments in optics are done, it is the way the measuring equipment is physically affected by the light which we actually measure.

therefore, everything which involves physics, involves matter.
but we simply cannot physically explain the physical phenomenon we call matter!

what is matter?
how does it come to be?
physics will tell us of atoms, of sub atomic particles, etc.

but this simply cannot explain what matter is.

and why?

well, one thing we know about matter, no matter the scale, is that any matter we consider is confined within some sort of physical volume.
let's say a chair.
a chair is confined within a diameter, ususally something below two meters.

what is the chair made of?
particles

so what are the particles made of?
some of the particles are made from smaller particles, that much we know, like molecules are made of atoms for example.

but are all particles made of smaller particles?
or is there a minimal diameter, below which no particle can sub divide?

if all particles are made of smaller particles, then for one, at no point can we stop and say, we know how matter is made, as the structure of matter is infinitely sub dividable.
physics cannot "deal with it", as it will require an infinitely big blackboard to describe it.

but furthermore, physics simply does not deal with it, because at whatever level of the internal structure we will stop, we will not be able to understand the building block particles which we are talking about, for the simple reason we have not explored that sub level yet.

we can argue that the manner by which particles sub divide is recursive, that what happens in the macro levels, happens also in the micro level, and by that we can know the infinitely complex sub structure of particles using a short recursive description.
just to clarify this notion, this is like saying that the way an electron revolves around the nucleus of an atom is governed by the same physical laws which govern the rotation of the earth around the sun.

however, this notion suffers from fundamental flaws.
for one, we have no proof to support this notion.
for example, electrons shift between energy levels in a non linear manner, while gravity is linear.
furthermore, we can never have proof of that.
by saying matter has an infinitely complex sub structure, we are already declaring that no matter how many man years we invest into the investigation of the sub structure of matter, we will never have a complete verified description of this sub structure.
and if we can't have proof, we might be wrong.
and if we might be wrong, then there might be behaviors in particles we will never really document in any theory regarding physics.

but there's an even bigger problem.
if matter is infinitely sub dividable, then what exactly is matter?
you see, at no point do we have a particle which we know to be "what it says it is".
all particles are really nothing but a construct of smaller particles
so in reality, what we get is not matter, but an infinite plan how to make matter.

and nothing in this plan is made of particles, and therefore nothing in this plan is physical.
it is metaphysical

there is still one notion here which i have not tackled, and it is the possibility that while matter has a sub structure, this sub structure becomes relevant only when we try to split particles into their components.

the idea here is that matter is like clay.
we can increase or decrease the amount of clay and get bigger or smaller lumps of clay.
we can split the lump of clay we have to several sub lumps, but these sub lumps are not the result of a sub structure of the original lump, but rather a result of the way we divided the original lump.

but again, there are fundamental flaws in this notion.
for one, experiments in physics have shown us that this does not happen.
there is no linear manner by which we can split particles.
something does govern the manner by which we can split particles, and for all intended purposes, this manner is the substructure of matter.

but more to the point

what is this clay?!?

again, it is not made of particles, as particles are made of it, and if it is not made of particles, it is outside the bounds of any theory regarding physics, and therefore this clay is metaphysical.

ok, now let's consider the other option.

before we continue, for the course of our discussion, let's define the term elementary particles as particles which cannot subdivide into particles of smaller diameter.
now, since all particles have minimal diameter which can be wrapped around their surface, let's consider the elementary particle with the smallest such diameter in nature.
the smallest elementary particle.

let's call it bob

first we need to establish the question, does bob have volume?
well, thinking that bob has no volume, means that bob does not exist!
if bob does not fill some space, then where bob is, there is empty space, and therefore we have no bob.
but since our initial assumption is that bob exists, then that cannot be.

so bob has volume.

now, before we continue, we have to tackle another question:
is space continuous?

why?

well, let's say we try to move bob in a specific direction, a distance which equals to the width of bob.
it's like moving a box so that its left side would now sit where its right side used to be.

here you go, a silly sketch

|_|.. => ..|_|

now let's forget the box and consider bob.
if space is not continuous, then it just might be possible that we can move bob only by a "click", meaning it doesn't go the whole distance but more like "teleports" this distance:

1. B_O_B_____
2. _____B_O_B

however, if space is continuous, bob will be able to move in a continuous way as well:

1. B_O_B_____
2. _B_O_B____
3. __B_O_B___
4. ___B_O_B__
5. ____B_O_B_
6. _____B_O_B

if space is not continuous, then it might mean that we cannot talk about sizes smaller than the width of bob, as such sizes do not exist.

you will soon understand why this is important.

if there are no distances smaller than the width of bob, then bob might truly be non dividable, as there's nothing smaller than bob.

but is this even possible?

one "elementary" attribute of particles is that they can collide with each other.
if they cannot collide, then they don't collide, and if they don't collide, they don't affect other particles, and if they don't affect other particles, then they don't affect other particles, period!
they have no effect on particles, and therefore cannot be included in any theory regarding physics, and therefore, it will mean that bob is a metaphysical particle.

but if indeed bob "teleports" from point to point, then how can a collision be possible?

let's say we have two bobs: bobi and bobo.
bobi sits in point A, and bobo in point B, which is adjacent to point A by the minimal distance in nature (we already agreed to assume that such distances exist).
there is no collision between them yet.
why should there be?

now bobi "teleports" form point A to point B, while bobo was just minding its own business.
in point B there are now two particles: bobi and bobo.

there was no "process" in the "teleportation" of bobi, as there was no "place" where it could have happened:
bobi just appeared in point B.

so now we have the volume of bobi and bobo in point B.
but what exactly happened?

did bobi "overwrite" bobo?
if so we have no collision as bobo was simply "erased".

did bobi and bobo compress to share the same point in space?
impossible!
there are no sizes smaller than the size of a bob.

it simply is impossible that there was no process of collision happening in a distance smaller than the size of a bob.

ok, so let's say there are distances smaller than bob.

now, it doesn't matter if space is continuous or not anymore.
we have distances smaller than the size of a bob, and therefore we can "slice" a piece of the volume of a bob.
i am not really talking about removing a piece of a bob, merely "considering" only a segment of a bob:

(B_O_B) => (B_O_) (B)

ok, so what is (B) made of?
it can't be a particle, as bobs are the smallest particles in nature, and when there are no particles there are no theories dealing in physics, only metaphysics.
but that's not really the problem, as we already know there are no particles smaller than a bob, so (B) isn't a particle.

no, the problem is different.
the problem is we simply cannot explain in any theory regarding physics, what "happens" in (B).

i mean, something surly "happens" in (B).
if nothing "happens" then (B) is nothing.
if (B) is nothing, then the same could be said for (O),(_) and the other (B), and therefore nothing happens in a bob, and therefore a bob is nothing as well.
but we already assumed bob exists.

again, what happens in (B) is metaphysical as well.

so i conclude that to really understand what matter is we simply have to go into metaphysics.

but what is really important here to understand is that this is not a philosophical question!

only by understanding what matter is can we determine exactly how matter behaves.
it is only by answering the metaphysical question that we can really stop and say that we truly did find a complete theory for physics.

only this way can we ever know the result of any experiment we conduct.
only this way can we ever know the limit of our prior knowledge in physics.

and this brings me to my second example: unpredictability in nature.

anyone who knows anything about current theories in physics will tell you that unpredictability exists in nature, within the behavior of particles.
without going into detail, it can be shown that things happen in nature which we simply cannot predict as they are truly random.

theories in physics simply accept this as a fact, as it can be shown via experimentation.
they simply say it exists.

so sure, experiments show it, but what the fuck are they talking about?!?

let me explain.
unpredictability means that there is absolutely no prior condition which will tell us exactly what will be the next condition of something.
now, if we consider this on a more fundamental logical perspective, this is simply logically impossible!

if no prior condition of something can precisely determine the next condition, then it means that there is no reason why it finally did happen.
therefore, when we ask, "what did determine the next condition?", then there can only be one answer:

NOTHING!

so by saying simply "it exists", what scientists are actually saying is that something which doesn't exist, affected something which does exist, and therefore something which doesn't exist exists, and therefore what these scientists are actually saying is that this world is inconsistent!

the problem with this claim is simple.
something which is inconsistent cannot be bounded to any rule.
it cannot be limited just to amplitudes of wave functions of particles.
inconsistency means that anything is possible, and therefore no "static" rational theory regarding physics can be true.
the inconsistencies will crawl up to every equation, and render all theories in ANYTHING actually wrong.

what "it exists" means is simple.
give up while you can, because you will surely be wrong.

is this the only option?
is this the only way we can "swallow" unpredictability?

i beg to differ.

what if we considered the option that nothing in nature is inconsistent?
what then?
how could we consistently explain something which does not behave according to a set of prior conditions?

we can't.

so what can we do?

let's consider the term "a set of prior conditions".
what kind of set are we talking about?
3 variables?
10 variables?
100 variables?

no.
this is no good.
we can always calculate any finite set of conditions and by that precisely predict any phenomenon.

but we cannot calculate an infinite set of conditions, so if the amount of prior conditions was infinite, we would have both kept consistency and explain unpredictability!

so we see that if we constrain ourselves to consistency, unpredictability gets translated into infinity.

but this consistency constraint is metaphysical in nature.

we cannot grasp infinity just as much as we cannot grasp inconsistency.
we cannot "write down" infinity, as we would need an infinite amount of paper for it.
we cannot put infinity into an equation as we do in physics, and therefore, well...

all i can say is that it is "something new" to physics.

BUT

it does actually affect the world we live in physically.
so again, we see how metaphysics expand our ability to deal with problems in physics, which any theory in physics will fail to explain.

still, the problem with "physical" infinity is quite profound.
when we say that what we consider as unpredictable is actually governed by an infinite amount of conditions, what we are actually saying is that an infinite amount of physical "things" determine the behavior of the unpredictable physical event.

an infinite amount of things...

where in hell can we "store" an infinite amount of "things"?!?

you see, quantum mechanics show us that these unpredictable events occur with each and every particle.
we are not talking here about something unpredictable which happens in the entire universe, and has the entire universe to "store" its prior conditions.
we are talking about storing an infinity of conditions in a space so small that it could fit within a mere atom or molecule.

i will not explain here in detail why, but it is quite easy to understand that the infinity we are dealing with is a dimensional infinity.
if you read "Delta Theory", you would know these dimensions to be infinite contingent orthogonal dimensions.

never mind.

back to the subject of this text, on the fundamental level, to clear inconsistencies from any theory in physics, we must expand the realm of physics into metaphysics.
furthermore, by doing so, we are forced to add and modify our conception of what exists in the universe, even if all we ever wanted was "just" to clear some inconsistencies.

and it is simply irresponsible to do otherwise.
to think our physical world is inconsistent means anything we might build or plan based on our current theories in physics can crumble at will.

and this brings me to my final example (for now).

our consciousness.

you see, once we claim the physical world is consistent, we are in a bit of a problem.
the problem is simple.
we exist in this physical world, and if this physical world is consistent, then so are we.
our consciousness is consistent with the way the world is "made".
there is a way to logically understand how our consciousness is created.

and to the point

it's possible to build conscious machines.

you might think this is good news, and maybe it is, but there's a HUGE problem here.
all the machines we now know do is performing algorithms physically.
but
no algorithm, no prescription of actions can "render" a consciousness.

and why?

the most fundamental element of having a consciousness is the ability to self-validate its existence.
as you are reading this text, you, the reader, you are "feeling" your own existence.
if there is anything you can know for certain is that this thing you would call "your present", the here and now as you experience it, this sensation exists.
you can verify it, and not only can you verify, you can even think about it.

therefore, if we can think about our consciousness, if we can think about our very existence, then any artificial intelligence which is equal in ability to the human mind, should be able to do it as well.

but an algorithm simply does not cover such cognitive processes.

and again, why?

an algorithm is a prescription of action to do, with different options to take if different circumstances occur.
it is like a prescription how to make a cake.
the machine that performs the algorithm follows it to the letter, and that's how the algorithm is realized.
that's how we get our cake.

the machine takes objects and manipulates them according to the prescription, that's all.
when the machine tries to verify if any action it did was successful, it must measure it according to external criteria.

but if a machine created a consciousness, there is absolutely no way for it to determine if it was successful.
the machine must "ask" the objects it manipulated if it is conscious, and the objects can "answer" yes or no, but that's just "hearsay".

there simply are no external criteria to being conscious.

the machine simply cannot verify the creation of a consciousness when it succeeds, and therefore it cannot verify if any action it performs according to the algorithm it performed, rendered a consciousness.
for all the machine knows, every action it performs renders a consciousness within the object it manipulated.

so if in the prescription the machine performs, there would be a statement like "if you created a consciousness perform action A, otherwise perform action B", the machine would simply get stuck and not be able to do anything.
it simply doesn't have a clue.

now the thing is, we must remember that consciousness is not something we have all the time.
when we go to sleep, if we pass out, consciousness is put on pause.
the question, "am i conscious" is not always answered in "yes".

so the question is relevant, but furthermore, by the fact we can think about our consciousness we do something that machines as we know today simply cannot.
to ask a machine to render thought about the consciousness it created in an object, can only be done by asking the objects it operates on to do it for it.
so it's no longer the work of the machine, but rather the work of the objects, and therefore, some sort of "computational action" is left outside the ability of any machine performing any algorithm.

so machines which perform algorithms cannot render full artificial intelligence (i.e artificial consciousness included), but now we must return to our initial metaphysical hypothesis, that everything in this world is consistent, including our consciousness.

so how can we solve this tough cookie?

well, because this text is intended for the general public, i will not go deeply into the specifics of this.
i can say that the same dimensional infinity which solves the question of unpredictability, solve the question of consciousness as well.
in short, the idea here is that for dimensional infinity to affect the world, it must actually "do it", meaning perform infinite amount of changes on the world.
and because infinite amount of changes require infinite amount of energy, then we can know this behavior is self sufficient, in the sense that it doesn't take its energy to actually perform these infinite amount of changes from any other physical element.
and just like our machine needed to ask the objects to "think" about their consciousness, these self sufficient phenomena are the ones responsible for doing it in our mind.

that is all i can say about this.

you know why?

because no one in any academic institute would move their ass and start dealing with metaphysics within exact sciences.
that's why

so to sum up this text, i've shown you that by starting to think in terms of metaphysics, we gain the following:

1. the ability to have a complete theory in physics, by understanding what matter is.
2. the ability to have a consistent theory in physics, by determining what unpredictability is.
3. the ability to settle the existence of consciousness within a theory in physics, by understanding why consciousness cannot be rendered using existing theories in physics.

and after seeing all this, i think you must agree, that it's time for change.
i mean, the shift from physics to metaphysics will obviously reach way beyond the issues i covered.
the same "technology" used in creating our consciousness can just as well be evident in all fields in biology, and we just might be wasting time exploring nature under very limited premises.
furthermore, if indeed we will build a truly conscious machine, what does that mean regarding morality?

what do notions of good and evil mean to a machine we created from scratch?

the scope of change that can be derived from such paradigm shift is inconceivable, and the longer we are waiting, the longer we might be simply wasting our time.
there might be so much out there.

so i'm calling for a scientific paradigm shift.

spread the WORD.

ptyl, 12/6/2010