Neutron stars colliding. Theories destroyed.

When during 2017 scientists recorded a rippling in space-time, followed within two seconds by an associated burst of light observed by dozens of telescopes around the globe, they had witnessed, for the first time, the explosive collision and merger of two neutron stars. The neutron star merger created gravitational waves – a squiggly distortion in the fabric of space and time, that traveled about 130 million light-years through space, and arrived at Earth at almost the same instant as the high-energy light that jetted out from this merger.

The intense cosmological event observed on Aug. 17, 2017 also had other reverberations here on Earth: It ruled out a class of dark energy theories that modify gravity and challenged a large class of theories.

According to the researchers, “The simplest theories have survived”. “It’s really about the timing”, as mentioned in this study, which was published Dec. 18, 2017 in the journal Physical Review Letters.

A 100-year-old “cosmological constant” theory introduced by Albert Einstein in relation to his work on general relativity and some other theories derived from this model remain as viable contenders because they propose that dark energy is a constant in both space and time: Gravitational waves and light waves are affected in the same way by dark energy, and thus travel at the same rate through space.

“The favorite explanation is this cosmological constant […] That’s as simple as it’s going to get”, researchers explain. There are some complicated and exotic theories that also hold up to the test presented by the star-merger measurements. Massive gravity, for example (a theory of gravity that assigns a mass to a hypothetical elementary particle called a graviton) still holds a sliver of possibility if the graviton has a very slight mass.

Some other theories, though, which held that the arrival of gravitational waves would be separated in time from the arriving light signature of the star merger by far longer periods – stretching up to millions of years – don’t explain what was seen and must be modified or scrapped. (1)

The simpler the better.

It looks logical.

But it is also scary.

All this science and theories, discarded from an axiomatic definition of a “constant”; which was thought up by a genius in a flash of intuition without giving any valid logical or scientific explanation for its existence…

The universe is not here for us to understand it.

Monkeys try to understand.

Giraffes try to understand.

Worms try to understand.

We are here to shape the cosmos. To bend it under our own will.

Think of something. Define it as constant. It is now true.

Your whole universe can be and will be built around it!

You are not just a genius.

You are God…

Intuition. (not intuition at all…)

What is intuition?

Pearson and his colleagues wanted to take a more rigorous look at this hard-to-pin-down phenomenon. To begin with, they agreed that there are two qualities present in any instance of intuition: It has to involve a piece of information that you’re not exactly conscious of, and it has to have an emotional element.

The unconscious part is obvious, but what about the emotional part? If you think about it, most of the time when we have hunches, there’s an emotion associated with it. You enter a room and something just doesn’t feel right (fear, anxiety); or you get a bad vibe after just a few minutes of being in a new restaurant (disgust, discomfort); or you somehow know you’re going to hit it off with your new co-worker (excitement, anticipation).

Now that Pearson and his team had a working definition for intuition, the next step was to measure it. So they did what any of us would do: They set about trying to generate flickers of intuition in the brains of a dozen or so college students. (1)

Some people might argue that if intuition is proved to be based on things we know, then it will lose its “magic”.

I would say that if such a thing is proved, then the magic gets even more interesting: We seem to have intuitions about everything, from the existence of humans to the meaning of the world. If this intuition is based on something we already “know” then the first and more important question would be “Where do we know these things from?”…

I have an intuition that intuition is not intuition at all…

I have an intuition that the cosmos we see is not the cosmos we see at all…

I don’t know how I know it.

I just do…

Astronomy, “seeing”, looking…

WHEN I HEARD THE LEARN’D ASTRONOMER

When I heard the learn’d astronomer,
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me,
When I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them,
When I sitting heard the astronomer where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room,
How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,
Till rising and gliding out I wander’d off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars.

[Walt Whitman]

Scientific theories: The illusion of their “progress”

 

Many people regard “science” as a sector where humans progress constantly. Many people have the wrong idea that new scientific theories “build up” on older existing ones. Scientist lovers are extremely keen on insisting that this fact proves that science is “the way to go” if knowledge is our goal as humans.

However the truth is far more different. In essense all new scientific theories completely “destroy” the previous ones and do not build upon them! Take for example the Theory of Relativity (ToR) and the gravitational theory of Newton. The latter thought of the Universe as a set where planets affected one another with an instant force. On the other hard Einstein described the world of gravity (with the General ToR) as a space where the planets create curves in the timespace continuoum which is in turn responsible for the movements of the planets. In other words: even though many would like the opposite, the two theories have NOTHING IN COMMON when it comes to their essense!

Do not get fooled by the fact that both theories try to explain the same thing: i.e. the fact that a planet attracts other planets! The basic meaning of the two theories is as similar as a kangaroo is with a small glass bottle…

Other examples can also easily show the same: Take for example the Euclidian geometry and the Riemman geometry. The quantum mechanics interpretation that a conscious human makes the wavefunction collapse and the interpretation which claims that everything is purely random. Any theory which is significantly different than its predecessors (or other theories which compete with it) is not something “similar but improved”. It is something completely different! If tommorow it is “proved” (strange word indeed…) that we are all made up of string and not atoms, how that would be “progress” ?

“OK. But is it not different towards a better understanding of reality?” someone might argue. But in order to use that argument you should now where reality actually lies (in order to see of the new theory is more close to that). And even in that case, the argument still has nothing to do with “building up” on old theories.

What drives science is intuition and free thinking! Not the short-sighted expansion of already existing theories or models! If that was the case, then every idiot patient enough to collect and analyze data (hey! isn’t not that what todays “scientists” do?) would be able to find new innovative theories. But this is not the case… Einstein did not need multi-billion dollar accelerators…

Science vs. Religion – The intuition arguments…

Author: Spiros Kakos

Harmonia Philosophica Facebook page

Religion-Science Philosophy articles series

Science people tend to laugh at the importance other people show at intuition. But they shouldn’t laugh at all. If one has read at least some History of Science, then he will know that the greatest scientific discoveries came to be due to intuition and intuition only!

Just think about it. The idea of a “invisible field affecting other masses from distance instantly” would certainly look absurd at the time of Newton. The idea that “time is relative” would certainly look irrational at the time of Eistein. However these great ideas, which came to be not as a result of experiments but as a result of the fantasy of some great people, are the ideas which formed physics! In a way, a genious is more irrational than rational! And this is what makes him (or her) unique. Pincare emphasized the role of intuition in mathematical discoveries and Riemann actually found out the way prime numbers are distributed based only on intuition. And surely someone cannot say that the new String Theory or the Multiple Universes theories of todays physics have come to life based on “evidence” or “experiments”… And the catalogue goes on…

Since we are kinds we are taught how to think. But only if we think differently will we discover new things! Only if we forget how to think will we actually think freely! And in order to open new doors, we must forget of the axioms on which we were once based upon. Our “Geometry” was based on many axioms which we all thought as “correct” for thousands of years. Look what happened when we simply chose to change them: a whole new universe of new Geometries came into existence! The same applies for all other scientific fields. Science was supposed to always seek the truth. But since many years ago, it has seized to do so. Whenever a certain axiom worked sufficiently for some time, “scientists” just forgot that it was an axiom and started looking at it as if it were some kind of “innevitable truth”. And then everything can go wrong…

Intuition is what humans use to formulate axioms. And in that sense it is much more fundamendal and of “higher essense” than Logic or any other human construction which is based on such entities (i.e. axioms). Intuition is the keyhole through which we glance at Reality. Logic and other methodologies are just by-products of intuition. Intuition looks at the world directly, while all other methodologies we have available only look at the cosmos through the lens we have built for them.

What could happen when we stop thinking that everything is made of matter? What could happen when we stop thinking that something can be right and wrong at the same time (see Dialethism), as an electron can be in many different states (see quantum mechanics)? What could happen we we stop thinking that humans are nothing more than inorganic molecules bound together? What could happen if we stop thinking that a set of electic currents can produce that unique immaterial thing we call “consciouness”? What could happen if we trust our inner feelings about us having a purpose here on this cosmos? What could happen if we trust our intuition that there must be a reason for something to exist instead of nothing? What would happen if we stop thinking that free will is an illusion (as many materialists today claim) and start thinking that it may actually exist (as our feeling tells us so)?

Our intuition tells us that the answer to many of the abovementioned questions could be the key to finding out who we really are. Or as someone might say: to remember what we once knew about who we are, before out analysis-mania ruined everything. Are we scientific enough to trust our feelings?

In the words of Wittgenstein, “Man has to awaken to wonder – and so perhaps do peoples. Science is a way of sending him to sleep again…”

Related articleScientific theories: The illusion of their “progress”

Exit mobile version
%%footer%%