Our new Vatican
It struck me this morning that I've not written anything on this blog for a couple of weeks... which almost certainly means several months. Time flies like… mad, doesn't it?
I've not written anything largely because I've not had anything worth wasting your time with, but also because I've been flogging away at the Grand Oeuvre. I can't remember where I was up to last time I wrote anything here, but I'm now trying to sort out how to write Chapter 21, which will be the culmination of all the evidence I've assembled in the previous 20 chapters. I've delved into Magic and The Occult and come out smiling, and have, I hope, showed how Mind differs from Brain. All the while, I've been looking for flaws in the overall philosophy of Idealism… and have not found the slightest trace. (Idealism is the sole and automatic opposite of Materialism. Once you appreciate the fact that Materialism is irrational and unsupported by any evidence at all, then Idealism must replace it as a logical necessity. But don't take my word for it, or anybody else's; check it for yourself.).
And all the while, further elements keep dropping into place. It struck me all over again how science has replaced religion to such a degree as to be almost laughable. Scientists are now the fount of all wisdom. If we see a funny light in the sky zig-zagging about, we turn not to a priest, but to a scientist. Whether we find the explanation of 'a weather balloon' or 'Venus' any more satisfying than 'an angel, my son, an angel', is a moot point.
The parallel is greater. Both institutions speak from seats of power, 'ex cathedra', from either the Vatican or the Palace of Lambeth, or Oxbridge University. Both hold each other in either scorn or bewilderment, and occasionally both wear recognisable uniforms. Above all, both are quite sure that they are right, and thus nobody else can be.
What struck me this morning is that science now has its own brand new cathedral in the Large Hadron Collider. All wisdom will apparently now come from this new building, in a way similar to the heavenly revelations that Church buildings were once associated with.
They are looking for the Higgs boson, a so-far theoretical particle which will, they think, 'explain' gravity, and with luck, take us one step closer to a Theory of Everything.
Surely nobody seriously believes in either of these expectations?
If they do find a Higgs boson, it will not 'explain' anything. It will just pose more problems, and the issue of what caused what will just be pushed one step further back into mystery. Science, by definition, produces more questions than answers. It is a never-ending quest. Hence the silliness of… a 'Theory of Everything'. Even if we admit that the pompous title is an embarrassment, the whole mindset behind it is even more embarrassing.
A few of the things science 'does not fully understand' includes, mass, light, electricity, life, mind, and consciousness. A Theory of Everything would, naturally, explain all of these, plus other mysteries like intuition, creativity, how we see things 'out there' when the visual cortex is at the back of the head, and, a current favourite of mine, how a young man of normal disposition got an honours degree in Maths at Sheffield University in the 1980's while having a brain which amounted to no more than a rind the thickness of orange peel inside his skull. The rest was full of fluid. (Try googling 'Professor John Lorber', the doctor who wrote the case up). I can send you a relevant pdf if you like.
And then we have the problem of how the LHC experiments are to be run. As I understand it, they fire beams of fantastically tiny particles into each other at unimaginably high speeds. The ensuing collision will, they hope, produce a cloud of particles, including the Higgs boson.
What I find baffling is that his experiment is meant to mimic the Big Bang: the exploding singularity which is thought to have produced the entire universe from within its own pinprick dimensions.
Am I alone in thinking that if you wish to mimic the Hugest Explosion of All Time, you should not go about it by creating the Smallest Collision of All Time?
I've raised this issue with a few scientists and have not yet heard a convincing explanation. Perhaps you can help me out?
I'll summarise all responses as soon as possible.
Bearing all the above in mind, I find myself wondering how much longer we as a society will allow Big Science to spend untold billions of our taxes on ever more expensive machinery which can clearly never do the jobs they are designed to do, if a Theory of Everything is the target.
Big Religion used to be in this position, taking by right one tenth of all the wealth of the land. In Tudor times, while peasants were allowed by law, only three courses (including soup) at mealtimes, guess who alone could have nine courses. Yep.. cardinals.
The LHC has so far cost £4.5 billion (that is admitted to). It broke down immediately. The repair cost of £14 million has now reached £24 million. Will it ever break down again?
You could build a half-decent York Minster for that sort of money, or bring a proper education or fresh water to a lot more kids.
I do sense that times are a-changing, and that sooner rather than later we will start asking loud questions about what we want our tax-tithes to be spent on.
Incidentally, have you come across the Flynn Effect? Mr Flynn is a political scientist from New Zealand who noticed some curiosities in the statistics on intelligence. He did his homework and concluded that human intelligence is increasing at the rate of some 3% per decade, or approx 10% per generation. This is NOT directly tagged to education, nutrition, or culture, and is, frankly a mystery. His figures are accepted as accurate.
What does this mean?
I hope it means that as we get smarter we will demand more rational expenditure of taxes, and greater principle in government policy.
It might, of course, mean all sorts of other things as well.
Exciting times lie ahead, perhaps…
Carpe diem.
I've not written anything largely because I've not had anything worth wasting your time with, but also because I've been flogging away at the Grand Oeuvre. I can't remember where I was up to last time I wrote anything here, but I'm now trying to sort out how to write Chapter 21, which will be the culmination of all the evidence I've assembled in the previous 20 chapters. I've delved into Magic and The Occult and come out smiling, and have, I hope, showed how Mind differs from Brain. All the while, I've been looking for flaws in the overall philosophy of Idealism… and have not found the slightest trace. (Idealism is the sole and automatic opposite of Materialism. Once you appreciate the fact that Materialism is irrational and unsupported by any evidence at all, then Idealism must replace it as a logical necessity. But don't take my word for it, or anybody else's; check it for yourself.).
And all the while, further elements keep dropping into place. It struck me all over again how science has replaced religion to such a degree as to be almost laughable. Scientists are now the fount of all wisdom. If we see a funny light in the sky zig-zagging about, we turn not to a priest, but to a scientist. Whether we find the explanation of 'a weather balloon' or 'Venus' any more satisfying than 'an angel, my son, an angel', is a moot point.
The parallel is greater. Both institutions speak from seats of power, 'ex cathedra', from either the Vatican or the Palace of Lambeth, or Oxbridge University. Both hold each other in either scorn or bewilderment, and occasionally both wear recognisable uniforms. Above all, both are quite sure that they are right, and thus nobody else can be.
What struck me this morning is that science now has its own brand new cathedral in the Large Hadron Collider. All wisdom will apparently now come from this new building, in a way similar to the heavenly revelations that Church buildings were once associated with.
They are looking for the Higgs boson, a so-far theoretical particle which will, they think, 'explain' gravity, and with luck, take us one step closer to a Theory of Everything.
Surely nobody seriously believes in either of these expectations?
If they do find a Higgs boson, it will not 'explain' anything. It will just pose more problems, and the issue of what caused what will just be pushed one step further back into mystery. Science, by definition, produces more questions than answers. It is a never-ending quest. Hence the silliness of… a 'Theory of Everything'. Even if we admit that the pompous title is an embarrassment, the whole mindset behind it is even more embarrassing.
A few of the things science 'does not fully understand' includes, mass, light, electricity, life, mind, and consciousness. A Theory of Everything would, naturally, explain all of these, plus other mysteries like intuition, creativity, how we see things 'out there' when the visual cortex is at the back of the head, and, a current favourite of mine, how a young man of normal disposition got an honours degree in Maths at Sheffield University in the 1980's while having a brain which amounted to no more than a rind the thickness of orange peel inside his skull. The rest was full of fluid. (Try googling 'Professor John Lorber', the doctor who wrote the case up). I can send you a relevant pdf if you like.
And then we have the problem of how the LHC experiments are to be run. As I understand it, they fire beams of fantastically tiny particles into each other at unimaginably high speeds. The ensuing collision will, they hope, produce a cloud of particles, including the Higgs boson.
What I find baffling is that his experiment is meant to mimic the Big Bang: the exploding singularity which is thought to have produced the entire universe from within its own pinprick dimensions.
Am I alone in thinking that if you wish to mimic the Hugest Explosion of All Time, you should not go about it by creating the Smallest Collision of All Time?
I've raised this issue with a few scientists and have not yet heard a convincing explanation. Perhaps you can help me out?
I'll summarise all responses as soon as possible.
Bearing all the above in mind, I find myself wondering how much longer we as a society will allow Big Science to spend untold billions of our taxes on ever more expensive machinery which can clearly never do the jobs they are designed to do, if a Theory of Everything is the target.
Big Religion used to be in this position, taking by right one tenth of all the wealth of the land. In Tudor times, while peasants were allowed by law, only three courses (including soup) at mealtimes, guess who alone could have nine courses. Yep.. cardinals.
The LHC has so far cost £4.5 billion (that is admitted to). It broke down immediately. The repair cost of £14 million has now reached £24 million. Will it ever break down again?
You could build a half-decent York Minster for that sort of money, or bring a proper education or fresh water to a lot more kids.
I do sense that times are a-changing, and that sooner rather than later we will start asking loud questions about what we want our tax-tithes to be spent on.
Incidentally, have you come across the Flynn Effect? Mr Flynn is a political scientist from New Zealand who noticed some curiosities in the statistics on intelligence. He did his homework and concluded that human intelligence is increasing at the rate of some 3% per decade, or approx 10% per generation. This is NOT directly tagged to education, nutrition, or culture, and is, frankly a mystery. His figures are accepted as accurate.
What does this mean?
I hope it means that as we get smarter we will demand more rational expenditure of taxes, and greater principle in government policy.
It might, of course, mean all sorts of other things as well.
Exciting times lie ahead, perhaps…
Carpe diem.
posted by Chas Griffin at 4:27 pm
4 comments
