Is circular reasoning legal in physics?

Referring to Lisa Randall, Sabine Hossenfelder writes:

And that is how the top of tops of theoretical particle physicists react if someone points out they are unable to acknowledge failure: They demonstrate they are unable to acknowledge failure.

If Lisa Randall is “the top of tops of theoretical particle physics” I feel sorry for humanity and the old science of physics.

When I started writing my book, I thought the problem is they are missing information. But I no longer think so. Particle physicists have all the information they need. They just refuse to use it. They prefer to believe.

So, physicists prefer to believe in their pet scenarios blindly instead of considering data that contradicts their pet scenarios. This is not the scientific attitude but the old scholastic attitude. Physicists are not trying to understand nature but trying to fit nature into their silly speculations.

Ms. Hossenfelder also calls physicists intelligent: “Some thousand of the most intelligent people the human race has ever produced.“ Is this really true? Can we call these scholastic doctors of philosophy the most intelligent specimens of humanity? They are just careerist academics trying to move up the ladder of academia.

If I were to write a few years ago similar stuff about corruption in physics Ms. Hossenfelder would have called me a crackpot. Now she is stirring the pot and rocking the boat of physics and I support her full heartedly. Other physicists are calling her a dinghy challenging a super tanker for right of way. Very apt. I like the image of academic physics as a super tanker filled to the brim with junk theories that serve no purpose except career advancements. She calls herself crazy, tongue in cheek, of course. I’ve been writing about how corrupt physics is at least for 20 years and of course no one takes them seriously because I’m an outsider. But I want to build on some of the bad things she identifies in physics. One is the widespread use of circular reasoning in physics. Ms. Hossenfelder repeatedly shows that physicists use circular reasoning in their theories.

So, Is circular reasoning legal in physics?

Talking about “naturalness” Ms. Hossenfelder writes:

The biggest problem, however, is the same for both types of naturalness: You don’t have the probability distribution and no way of obtaining it because it’s a distribution over an experimentally inaccessible space. To quantify naturalness, you therefore have to postulate a distribution, but that has the consequence that you merely get out what you put in. Naturalness arguments can therefore always be amended to give whatever result you want.

This is blatant circular reasoning. Is it possible that “the most intelligent people the human race has ever produced” can miss that their reasoning is circular? I don’t think this is possible. Ms. Hossenfelder, as a physicist, clearly sees that making predictions with naturalness arguments is nothing more than circular reasoning and you “get out what you put in” and “naturalness arguments can therefore always be amended to give whatever result you want.“

So, Ms. Hossenfelder is warning her colleagues that what they are doing is charlatanism because they invented an argument and called it “naturalness” but this argument is nothing more than circular reasoning that lets them obtain whatever results they want. This is really a damning accusation.

So far, I did not hear a physicist replying to Ms. Hossenfelder and denying that naturalness argument is circular. That’s why these physicists are charlatans.

I’m not using the word charlatan lightly. In any other professional field where practitioners must obey professional and ethical rules such charlatanism will not be allowed. But physics is an unregulated professional field and physicists know this, they know it’s anything goes, no regulations, no responsibilities, so they break all the rules of logic and all the rules of reasoning and no one questions their silly philosophizing and childish arguments. That’s why I say that academic physics is not science, it is legal. In legal, whatever is legal is true. If circular reasoning is legal, then no physicist will question a circular reasoning. On the contrary, he will also use circular reasoning to further his own pet speculations.

Physics is an unregulated and corrupt professional field. It is unregulated because physicists have no customers. The government has no incentive to regulate physics. On the contrary, the government likes and uses absurd scenarios invented by physicists because these scenarios justify the building of outrageously expensive Big Physics projects in the name of making discoveries in “fundamental” physics. It’s a charade played by the governments and physicists. Physicists work for the government anyway. Either directly, in Big Physics projects or indirectly through grants obtained by way of universities.

Ms. Hossenfelder is just scratching the surface, the corruption in physics is endemic, it’s in the culture, it’s chronic, acute and traditional. This becomes obvious when we realize who these people who call themselves physicists are. They are the current practitioners of the oldest profession in the world, scholasticism. A physicist is a scholastic Doctor of Philosophy. That’s a physicist’s true professional title. These are the same people who used to write De Motu’s in Latin in the same European universities in the middle ages and produced countless commentaries on commentaries on Aristotle. Now only the names changed. Now the commentaries are on Einstein and De Motu’s turned into papers on all kinds of forces and particles. The new Latin is mathematics or as used in physics, mathematicism, a pidgin mathematics with zero rigor, that acts only as false witness to physicist’s doctrines. It’s all academic. Even experiments are academic. They all give null results. Academic means null. It would be so funny if this weren’t so tragic.

Notlar:

— I know scholasticism is not the oldest profession in the world. It is the penultimate oldest profession but I didn’t want to get that pretentious.

— These are the the referenced articles, by Sabine Hossenfelder, A philosopher’s take on “naturalness” in particle physicsThe Multiworse Is Coming

— Lisa Randall is a radical Big Bangist who pretends to know the entire lifetime of everything that exists because Hubble observed that 24 galaxies appeared to going away from the Earth. 24 galaxies!! Lisa Randall is a charlatan who wants us to believe that 24 galaxies constitute a representative sample of the whole. This is a joke. I would have said arrogance but this is not arrogance, this is charlatanism.

— What is circular reasoning? “The fallacy of circular argument, known as petitio principii (“begging the question”), occurs when the premises presume, openly or covertly, the very conclusion that is to be demonstrated.”

— Ms. Hossenfelder being a metaphorical dinghy against the physics behemoth is mentioned here.

Sabine Hossenfelder on Multiple Wholes

Sabine Hossenfelder writes:

Our universe is one of infinitely many [universes].

Let me try to decipher the meaning of this sentence. The problem is that you are using the word “universe” with two different meanings in the same sentence.

[Of course, when I say “you” I don’t mean you. Don’t take it personally. Just like the word “universe” the word “you” have two meanings. It may refer to you, or to a generic particle physicist representing your colleagues who are the lovers of null results and corrupters of physics.]

The word universe can have two meanings. First let me explain the difference between the words “universe” and “cosmos”. Today these two words are used interchangeably but historically they were used to refer to two different entities.

The word “universe” meant “the universe as a whole.” This means that, by definition, the word “universe” cannot have a plural because it is the name of the absolute whole. It’s like the word “God” in a monotheistic religion. By definition there is only one God. It makes no sense to say “our God is one of many Gods” because you defined a monotheistic religion with one God.

Similarly, the plural of the word universe, “universes”, does not make sense because by definition we decided that the word “universe” referred to everything that exists, the absolute whole. (Physicists are the major corrupters of the English language.) There can only be one whole. Do you dispute this? How can you dispute it? There can only be one Whole. I even wrote it with a capital letter to emphasize that it is a unique entity and it does not have a plural. The Whole is whole. The Whole is One. These are definitions that cannot be changed.

Cosmos, on the other hand, is a truncation of the Whole. Since the ancient times, the professional class who owned the subject of astronomy defined a cosmos. The owners of astronomy and cosmology always have been a priestly class working for the rulers. This priestly class obtained their power from their supposed knowledge of the entire universe. Did they know the entire universe? Of course not. So what did they do? They defined a cosmos and defined the cosmos they defined to be the entire universe. So rest assured that what you are doing is nothing new, on the contrary it is the oldest trick in the profession.

What is this trick? Let’s repeat. The professional priests of astronomy know that they cannot know the Whole. But their power comes from their claim to know the Whole. So they define a cosmos. This cosmos is the part of the universe visible to them by using their current technology. For instance, naked eye cosmos is limited with the spheres of fixed stars. The priests claim that this cosmos they defined is also the universe as a whole, or what we’ve been calling “the Whole.”

But with the discovery of the telescope, the lies of this priestly professionals are revealed and the new generations of astronomers observing with telescopes discover that the universe is much bigger than their predecessors believed. You would think that this new generation would say “we don’t know the Whole, we will never know the Whole, all we can know is the observable universe and what we can infer from it scientifically.” No. These are professionals and their job is to lie and define a cosmos and sell it as the Universe as a Whole. And that’s what they do. They claim that the Whole is made of galaxies. Again, the priestly class who work for the ruling powers defined a cosmos and then sold their cosmos as the Universe as a Whole.

In short, every generation of cosmologists markets its cosmos as the Whole. Then the next generation comes with more powerful observational tools and markets its cosmos as the Whole. This charlatanism has been going on for millennia and furthermore it is been sold as the progress of science. This is not progress. This is lying.

I’m sure that now you understand clearly the difference between a cosmos and the universe as a whole. Let’s look at your sentence again. When you say “our universe” you actually mean “our cosmos” because if you use the word “universe” here to mean “universe as a whole”, “-our- universe as a whole” does not make sense. By using the word “our” you delimit or truncate the Whole and you implicitly and tacitly assume a cosmos. The way you start your sentence with “our” makes it clear that you are talking about a cosmos, “our cosmos” or the visible universe plus the inferable universe.

You admit that there is a part of the Whole from where no light reaches you and no light will ever reach you. The unknown part is not a different Whole. The fact that you do not know that unknowable part does not make that part another Whole. Don’t forget the Whole is whole. By definition.

So when we clearly define the word universe in your sentence, it turns out you are saying something trivial because your sentence simply means “our cosmos is one of infinitely many cosmoses that we can define.” Please note, a cosmos is a defined entity. You can define as many cosmoses as you wish.

But I’m sure that you will deny that when you say “universe” you mean “cosmos”. You claim that your “universe” refers to the universe as a whole. Because just like all priestly professional astronomers and cosmologists before you, you defined a cosmos and assert that your cosmos is the Whole. But you also have become a masterful sophist and surpassed your professional ancestors in the art of doubletalk because now it is impossible for us to tell when you mean “universe as a whole” and when you mean “cosmos”. I bow respectfully under this level of sophistry.

***

But since the word universe has only two meanings we can read your sentence by writing explicitly the meanings of the word “universe”. So the universe can mean

  1. The Whole; or
  2. The part, or the cosmos.

Simple as that.

So all the permutations of meanings of your sentence are these:

1. Our Whole is one of many Wholes.
2. Our Whole is one of many parts.
3. Our part is one of many parts.
4. Our part is one of many Wholes.

(I eliminated the word “infinity”, since it is not essential to the meaning.)

Probably you assert the first meaning: “Our Whole is one of many Wholes.” This is a masterful example of scholastic doubletalk. You define the Whole to be a part and a part to be the Whole.

Above I gave the example of the concept of God in a monotheistic religion. God is unique, the way the Whole is unique. It makes no sense to say “Our unique God is one of infinitely many Gods.” This makes your God one God among many. But this contradicts your axiom that your God was unique. Same with the Whole. Don’t you see this? I’m sure you do. It makes no sense to say “Our unique Whole is one of many Wholes.”

This is absurd: “Our universe as a whole is not unique, there are infinitely many universes as a whole.” Written like this, the absurdity of your sentence becomes clear. But this sentence is not only absurd but it is a linguistic slight of hand. It is sophistry. If “our universe” is the universe as a whole then there cannot be another universe as a whole inside it because that second “universe” will be a part of “our universe as a whole”.

So which meaning do you really believe! You believe in all of them as the case may be! Yes you can, and will, defend each of the four meaning permutations as the case may be. This is called casuistry, as I explain below. So if I accuse you of claiming something as absurd as the first permutation, you will simply say “No” and claim to defend the third meaning. Or another one. You will always be right. This cannot change. Because you are the present representative of the priestly class who owned cosmology for millennia.

Your “multiverse” should really be “multimos” from “multicosmos”. But no one will take you seriously if you speculate about a small part of the universe. You are the priests of cosmology and you know the secrets of the universe as a whole so you make grandiose claims about the universe as a whole even though you admit that you know nothing about the unkowable parts of the Whole. This is where your mastery scholastic sophistry comes handy. You sell yourself as an expert on what you admit you know nothing about. This is the bonus of being the hereditary Doctors of Philosophy.

***

The above analysis showing the absurdity of the concept of multiverse (a concept defining multiple Wholes or exploiting the word “Whole” by corrupting it) is so simple that it is not possible for a physicist not to understand it. But they don’t. Why? How come a physicist can utter a sentence meaning “our universe as a whole is one of many universes as a whole” with a straight face and build philosophical sand castles on this sophistry and doubletalk?

How can a physicist claim that the Whole is a part of many Wholes?

Well, this type of doubletalk by corrupting the meanings of words is the oldest trick in the book of scholasticism. This is called casuistry. It is a well-known, standard method of argument used by all Doctors of Philosophy including academic doctors and lawyers and politicians. They secretly define a word multiple times and then choose a meaning case by case. If you argue the letter of the law, the lawyer will argue the spirit of the law. If you argue the spirit he will argue the letter. Same with the cosmologist and physicist. They are in the same profession.

People who call themselves “physicists” today are the professional descendants of the ancient scribes who go as far back as ancient Egypt. They continue the tradition of defining a cosmos for their employers, the rulers, and market this cosmos as the universe as a whole.

***

We may also ask why these priestly professionals needed to invent the multiverse, the infinitely many Wholes? One answer may be that they love the absurd. The more absurd a concept is, the more papers you can write about it. (See my next article on this topic.)

Notes:

— Sabine Hossenfelder’s article where she talks about “naturalness” and “our universe” being one of infinitely many [universes] is A philosopher’s take on “naturalness” in particle physics. Her article about Multiverse nonsense is The Multiworse Is Coming

— Of course, when I say “you” I don’t mean you. Don’t take it personally. Just like the word “universe” the word “you” have two meanings. It may refer to you, or to a generic physicist representing your colleagues who are the lovers of null results.

 

The Cult of the Vis and the Soul of Newton

I got into a discussion in Twitter about Newton’s force with a Newtonian person. Here’s a summary of the exchange.

Sabine Hossenfelder wrote how physicists published 500 papers to explain some noise in the data produced at the LHC, a particle accelerator. I commented that this was charlatanism. Someone called Marcos Garcia Ochoa chimed in and wrote:

According to that criterion, Newton was a charlatan because he didn’t know how gravity worked.

What Marcos is alluding to is one of the most fundamental propaganda perpetuated by the Cult of Newton. This propaganda was first told by Newton and it’s been repeated by his disciples ever since.

Newton claimed to compute planetary orbits by using a quantity he called “force.” The defining characteristic of this force is that it acts from a distance and without time passing. This is known as “instantaneous action-at-a-distance.” This force defined by Newton acted from a distance (action-at-a-distance) and it acted without time passing (instantaneous). Every sane person –except physicists who blindly worship Newton– agree that instantaneous action-at-a-distance does not exist in nature. If Newton is saying that he computed planetary orbits by using action-at-a-distance he is lying because action-at-a-distance does not exist.

An example: the Newtonian force residing in the Sun acts intelligently from a distance and computes instantly the mass of the Earth without reaching to the Earth and sends the right amount of force to pull the Earth so that it can describe its orbit. All these happen without time passing. This is how Newton’s force works. This is absurd. Unless you blindly believe Newton’s authority and accept this absurd force on Newton’s word you will deny that such a force exists in nature and can make orbits happen.

But Newton needed this force in his System of the World so he claimed to have computed planetary orbits with this absurd force. Newton’s propaganda goes like this:

It’s true that I don’t know how this force works, but I computed planetary orbits by using this force and I got correct results. Therefore, this force must exist in nature, we just don’t know how it works. I leave it to the next generations to find out how this force works.

Newton’s disciples swallowed this propaganda and immediately started looking for this force by setting up pendulums near mountains and trying to compute the deflection of the mass of the mountain on the pendulum. Of course, they could not find any trace of this absurd force because it does not exist.

But since Newton said that this absurd force existed, Newton’s disciples invented all kinds of mathematical gimmick to incorporate this force to physics. To this day, physicists write a force term to uphold Newton’s authority but then they cancel it before making real calculations. They do this by writing a force term on both sides of an equation.

Look, here’s the force, we compute orbits by using force according to Newton

they say, then they cancel force terms. Any term written on both sides of an equation have no effect and it is cancelled. This is how physicists pray and worship their prophet Newton. For physicists, force is Newton’s Soul that permeates the entire universe. Well, if not the universe, it is the Soul that permeates entire physics.

I call Newton’s bluff. His disciples the physicists cannot question their prophet but I can. I say that there is no instantaneous action-at-a-distance in nature therefore Newton’s force does not exist in nature. It doesn’t exist therefore it cannot be used to compute orbits. It’s not that we don’t know how it works, no, there is nothing to work, because force does not exist.

But Newton says that he used this absurd force to compute planetary orbits. How can that be?

Simple. Since this force does not exist in nature Newton could not have used it to compute orbits.

And indeed, we open Newton’s famous book, we look at his computations of planetary orbits and we see that he is not using a term for force. You can check this for yourself. Newton is lying. He is not using force but he says he does. Newton’s disciples believed Newton and made this absurd force the fundamental interaction in physics and in nature.

I realize that discussing force with a physicist is like discussing Christ with the Pope. A physicist will have in his toolbox dozens of sophistical arguments to save this force and Newton’s authority and he will dismiss any arguments you throw at him. He will say “force is a field”; he will say “it’s not important what Newton did. Now we know better.” He will say “forget Newton. Gravity is explained by Einstein.” The Cult of the Vis will always win. The way the Pope will always win.

Notlar:

Twitter thread mentioned in the article. Sabine Hossenfelder’s blog.

Newton’s original computations in the Principia. You can confirm that he does not use a force term.

Güç: Newton kültünün ruhu

Şöyle bir mantık yürütüyorum: Newton “çekim gücü” diye bir etki tanımlamış. Fizik ders kitaplarında bu güç F=ma dile tanımlanır. Bu güç, Newton’dan sonra onun müritleri tarafından bu şekilde tanımlanmıştır yoksa Newton’un kendi yazdıkları arasında böyle bir tanımlama yoktur çünkü Newton denklemlerle ve eşitlik işareti ile çalışmamıştır. Newton sadece oranlarla çalışmıştır. Zaten bu çifte bir tanımlamadır. Hem gücü hem de kütleyi tanımlar. Yani Newton kültünün bayraklarından biridir. Semboldür. Gösteriştir. Bir işe yaramaz. Neden?

Çünkü Newton’un tanımladığı ve güç dediği bu etkinin en temel özelliği zaman geçmeden etki etmesidir. Yani Newton gücü fizikte kabul edilmiş olan bütün koruma kanunlarını ihlal eden bir etkidir. Termodinamik kanunlarına aykırıdır. Fakat en önemlisi, bu Newton gücü zaman geçmeden etki eden bir etki olarak tanımlanmıştır. Doğada zaman geçmeden etki eden bir şey yoktur ve olamaz. Böyle süpernatürel ve nasıl etki ettiği bilinmeyen etkilere okült etkiler diyoruz. Ama güç okult bile değildir, absürttür. Gizli değil, imkansızdır. İmkansız olduğu için de Newton gücü diye bir şey doğada yoktur diyoruz.

Mesela, güneşte hazır bulunan Newton gücünün dünyayı yörüngesinde tuttuğu varsayılıyor. Nasıl? Güneşte bulunan Newton gücü, güneşten yola çıkıyor 1 astronomi birimi yol katediyor ama süre zarfında hiç zaman geçmemiş oluyor. Işık bile güneşten dünyaya 4 dakikada geliyor. Newton gücü sıfır saniyede geliyor. Sadece bu değil. Newton gücü aynı zamanda akıllı da. Güneşten dünyaya şöyle bir bakıyor dünyanın kütlesini anında hesaplıyor ve dünyayı yörüngede tutacak kadar gücü yolluyor. Dünya da aynı şeyi yapıyor böylece dünya yörüngesinde dolanıp duruyor. Ve kendilerine fizikçi diyen insanlar bu absürd güce sadece şeyhleri Newton dedi diye inanıyorlar. Bu Newton gücü dediğimiz şey bütün evreni saran Newton’un ruhudur. Ben söylemiyorum bunu. Newton’un çağdaşı Huygens söylemiş.

Peki nasıl oluyor da kendilerine fizikçi diyen ve koruma kanunlarına inanan bu sağduyulu insanlar bütün koruma kanunlarını kıran bu Newton gücünü bir istisna olarak kabul ediyorlar ve doğada böyle absürd bir etkinin olabileceğine inanıyorlar? Nasıl oluyor da böyle fizik dışı bir ruhu fiziksel bir güç olarak kabul edebiliyorlar? Nasıl oluyor da bu absürd güce inanmadığımız için bize deli diyorlar ama kendileri deli saçması bu güce inanıyorlar ve üstelik fiziğin en temel değeri yapıyorlar?

Newton gücü diye bir şey doğada yoktur çünkü doğada zaman geçmeden etki eden bir şey yoktur.

Notlar:

— Newton Kültü ile ilgili diğer yazılarım.

Yerçekimi: Newton ve Einstein

Ali Sebetçi:

[…] yerçekimi tek bir olgu fakat bu olgu iki ayrı teori ile açıklanabiliyor: birisi Newton’ın klasik genel çekim yasası, diğeri Einstein’ın genel görelilik kuramı

Yerçekiminin açıklanması konusundaki gözleminize katılamıyorum.

Genel görelilik kuramı ile genel çekim yasası temelde birbirleri ile çelişkilidir ve aynı olguyu açıklayamazlar. Einstein, Newton’un varsaydığı doğaüstü güç kavramına tepki olarak kendi yerçekimi kuramını geliştirmiştir. Einstein’ın kuramı yerçekimini çekim gücü diye bir şey olmadan açıklar. Yerçekimi ya çekim gücüdür ya da değildir. Aynı olgu (yerçekimi) hem çekim gücünü varsayan bir kuramla, hem de çekim gücünü yadsıyan bir kuramla açıklanamaz.

“Yerçekimi: Newton ve Einstein” yazısını okumaya devam et

Mutlak kavramı üzerine…

Ali Sebetçi’nin bir paylaşımına yorum yapmıştım. Paylaşım şu idi:
Sebetçi

En sonunda Ali bey bana Ezeli Hikmet Perspektifinin Merkezi Bir Kavramı Olarak Metafiziksel Sonsuzluk adlı makalesinin linkini yolladı ve okumamı istedi.

Ali Sebetçi beye sormuştum, “mutlak olarak tanımladığınız bazı şeyler nelerdir?” diye. Somut örneklerden giderek mutlak kavramını anlamanın daha kolay olacağını düşünmüştüm. Benim mutlak olarak tanımladığım birkaç örnek:

“Mutlak kavramı üzerine…” yazısını okumaya devam et

Kalpazan Newton: Hem suçlu, hem güçlü

Aşağıdaki yazıyı 5 sene önce yazmışım. Densytics adlı kitabımın özeti gibi bir şey.

1.

Newton’un kalpazanlığı pek bilinmez. Darphanede müdürlük yaparken yakalayıp darağacına yolladığı para kalpazanlarından daha kalpazandı Newton.

Newton’un suçu sahte para basmak değil; Newton’un suçu, sahte bir “güç” tanımlayıp, gerçek diye pazarlamak; sahte bir “dünya sistemi” kurup bütün insanlığa gerçek dünya diye satmaktır.

Newton’un bilim düşmanı bir kalpazan, akademik tarikat şeyhi, ve sahte dünya pazarlayıcısı olduğunu insanlara anlatabilmek biraz zor; Newton efsanesini delmek kolay değil.

“Kalpazan Newton: Hem suçlu, hem güçlü” yazısını okumaya devam et