Prelude to The Ring–the reason for this speculation

Hmm, a crisis at work put a hold on my postings here–right when I left you hanging with that tantalizing thought of a new idea of how the paradox of causality and entangled particles in quantum mechanics might lead us closer to what time and space really are. I have to warn you, though, this post is what real physicists call “speculative”, ie, not worth the paper it’s printed on. There’s good reason for that–physicists and other scientists are trying to build an artifice just like I have been doing in this journal. However, in their case, they are making an additional choice–they will not add something to the artifice until the something has been thoroughly vetted. This is done by cross-checking, mathematical analysis, and peer review, among other things. This has the big advantage that their confidence in their artifice, the textbook science we generally quote as fact, is so well substantiated that any rigorous analysis that is based on the artifice plus observations has an extremely high probability of being correct in some way.

On the other hand, I am writing a journal based on assumptions I openly acknowledge may be faulty. Why wouldn’t I be thorough and rigorous like the physicists, then I would be less likely to come up with bogus conclusions? The reason is that there’s a tremendous amount of work and time involved in coming up with a valid analysis that will stand up to peer review and the other cross checks–and much of the time, scientific progress is slow for this reason. It seems quite possible that in the rigorous search for truth, scientists will find themselves in a “local maximum”, a box canyon that presents hurdles to making further steps forward. How can that be? Well, part of the answer is that certain type of paradoxes can form, like our current one with causality and quantum entanglement. We get a trickle of new data most of the time from experimental science, and sometimes the data is such that it sets up scientists so that there’s just plain nowhere to go–we’ve spent lots of PhD thesis time proving both causality and entanglement, but these two just plain don’t go together. It would have been better if the scientists had instead discovered something else that would have made causality and entanglement directly derivable–but that didn’t happen, so currently scientists are stuck trying to figure out the connection. The path right now is not at all clear where to go.

It is not likely in my lifetime that significant major advances will come from scientific rigorous efforts, although the new accelerator coming online next year may help. I have a sneaking suspicion it won’t–they might find that Higg’s particle and patch up the standard model of physics, but I think that discovery may not really advance much thinking because I (with my limited knowledge of that subject) suspect that the Higg’s particle is a mathematical artifact that pops out to make mass and inertia fit the standard model. It won’t really tell us much about the underlying structure, I think–but I’m going out on a limb here, I could be really wrong.

So why on earth would I have the chutzpah to think I could do better? Because, when you think of that model for conscious thinking that I presented a few weeks or a month ago, science essentially (but unintentionally) shuts down the random permutator of abstractions. The requirement for a PhD to write a thesis that represents a valid conclusion prevents him from permuting current scientific thinking very far, because he has to substantiate every tiny step. But of course, I don’t have that limitation, and by taking advantage of that, I can choose how far astray I can go. Too far, and what you read here will be science fiction or crank physics, too little and I have nothing to add to either my artifice or the scientific artifice. I’m hoping to present some ideas that leapfrog the current science thinking–but just a little bit, I want to connect to reality as close as possible–and meet the scientists requirement of rigor in such a way that conclusions will fall together with new information to fill in the gaps caused by my (bigger than normal) permutation. In a nutshell, I permute our abstracts more than a scientist would in the hopes of finding a needle in the haystack–an idea that provides the underlying structure to make sense of a paradox like causality and entanglement. If I’m successful, I will have a far better picture of what time and space (or perhaps much better–what objects that move) really are. From there, I should be in a better position to declare what the possibilities for God are, if any, and why it seems to me that there is no obvious communication or influence from our creator.

Alright, let’s get down to it. Rings! Loops! What is that all about? Well, you’ll just have to wait for the next post…!



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: