This work is a dead end waiting to happen. Of course it will attract much interest, money, and perhaps even yield new insights into the commonality of language, but there’s better ways to get there.
What’s even more sad is that they, who should know better, will see my intentions in making this clear as destructive criticism instead of a siren warning regarding research governed/originating through a false paradigm. These people cannot see or overlook the costs humanity pays for the misunderstandings research like this causes and is based upon.
It’s even worse in the field of genetic engineering with their chimera research. The people wasting public money funding this research need to be gotten under control again.
I don’t want to criticize the researcher’s intentions. It’s their framing and methodology that I see as primitive, naive, and incomplete.
I’m not judging who they are nor their ends; rather, their means of getting there.
“Quantification” is exactly the wrong way to ‘measure/compare semantics; not to mention “partitioning” them!
1) The value in this investigation that they propose is to extrapolate and interpolate ontology. Semantics are more than ontology. They possess a complete metaphysics which includes their epistemology.
2) You cannot quantify qualities, because you reduce the investigation to measurement; which itself imposes meaning upon the meaning you wish to measure. Semantics, in their true form, are relations and are non-physical and non-reducible.
3) Notice also, partitioning is imposed upon the semantics (to make them ‘measurable/comparable’). If you compare semantics in such a way then you only get answers in terms of your investigation/ontology.
4) The better way is to leave the semantics as they are! Don’t classify them! Learn how they are related. Then you will know how they are compared.
There’s more to say, but I think you get the idea… ask me if you want clarification…
There Is Only Now
Here they confuse the issue… Badly!
More psyence mumbo jumbo to get you confused. If you would have said this before publication, you’d have been called a ‘nut job’ or ‘wacko’. But as you see, dogma does change.
They have time and space all whacked out and call people who have better explanations wacko!
The idea of a parallel universe does have uses. For example when we decide something or imagine how something may be different. We construct them in order to compare outcomes (or other aspects) with each other.
The problem with the article, for me, is that today’s science use them to reduce possibility and novelty to outcomes (or other aspects) that must preexist in some form!
They want everything to be non-personal 3rd. person ‘its’ running around interacting from some set of initial conditions! That’s one of the reasons why these parallel universes need to exist for them.
Otherwise they would have to account for some creative or imaginative process which would require a thinking being and not some 3rd. person ‘it’.
The Religion of Science Has a New Pope!
And ‘deniers’ are the neo-heretics and infidels!
The Pope appears to usher in a new Dark Age for Humanity by creating an encyclical… not about religion… it’s about science and politics!
Will a new age of Inquisition also ensue?
“He has been called the ‘superman pope’, and it would be hard to deny that Pope Francis has had a good December. Cited by President Barack Obama as a key player in the thawing relations between the US and Cuba, the Argentinian pontiff followed that by lecturing his cardinals on the need to clean up Vatican politics. But can Francis achieve a feat that has so far eluded secular powers and inspire decisive action on climate change?”
“It looks as if he will give it a go. In 2015, the pope will issue a lengthy message on the subject to the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics, give an address to the UN general assembly and call a summit of the world’s main religions.”
Physics is only complex, because it’s in someone’s interest to have it that way. The way to understanding, even if you don’t understand science, was paved with words. Even if those words led only to a symbolic form of understanding.
I’m a mathematician and can tell you that common ordinary language is quite capable of explaining physics. Mathematics is simply more precise than common language. It pays the price for that precision by being subservient to the causal and compositional relations. These are limitations that metaphysics and philosophy do not have.
Words in language have a structure that mathematics alone will never see as it looks for their structure and dynamics in the wrong places and in the wrong ways. Pure mathematics lacks an underlying expression of inherent purpose in its ‘tool set’.
With natural language we are even able to cross the ‘event horizon’ into interiority (where unity makes its journey through the non-dual into the causal realm). It is a place where mathematics may also ‘visit’ and investigate, but only with some metaphysical foundation to navigate with. The ‘landscape’ is very different there… where even time and space ‘behave’ (manifest) differently. Yet common language can take us there! Why? It’s made of the ‘right stuff’!
The monological gaze with its incipient ontological foundation, as found in pure mathematics, is too myopic. That’s why languages such as category theory, although subtle and general in nature, even lose their way. They can tell us how we got there, but none can tell us why we wanted to get there in the first place!
It’s easy to expose modern corporate science’s (mainstream) limitations with this limited tool set – you need simply ask questions like: “What in my methodology inherently expresses why am I looking in here?” (what purpose) or “What assumptions am I making that I’m not even aware of?” or “Why does it choose to do that? and you’re already there where ontology falls flat on its face.
Even questions like these are met with disdain, intolerance and ridicule (the shadow knows it can’t see and wills to banish what it cannot)! And that’s where science begins to resemble religion (psyence).
Those are also some of the reasons why philosophers and philosophy have almost disappeared from the mainstream. I’ll give you a few philosophical hints to pique your interest.
Why do they call it Chaos Theory and not Cosmos Theory?
Why coincidence and not synchronicity?
Why entropy and not centropy?
Why particle and not field?
(many more examples…)
“Hunting” for Life in the Universe… Who Speaks For Earth?
Let’s be careful exactly WHO speaks for us. People who “want to hunt for other life” do that to their own too. Perhaps we need other ‘stewards’ of our world to make first contact with another planetary/galactic civilization.
Whoever ends up owning the world should know that our neighbors ‘out there’ will be very interested in who we are and our history. Will our ‘representatives’ tell those neighbors the truth or will they lie?
Many of the ‘problems’ we have in the world are as artificial as the solutions being manufactured to solve them. Some of the most well-known ‘problems’ are those like the myth of overpopulation (http://overpopulationisamyth.com/overpopulation-the-making-of-a-myth), world poverty, war, terrorism, financial crisis, peak oil,… and soon: peak water (caused by activities such as fracking and the merchandising of water).
Another artificial problem of recent times is known by many names: global cooling (1970s),… ah…, global warming (late 1980s to 2010),… ah…, climate change (Bilderberg 2010).
The ‘stewards’ of our world have been complaining about our problems (in many cases) for a long time now. The question arises as to why, if they were so important, that they haven’t been solved by now? We would be living in the clouds and traveling to the planets if they had done what we trusted them to do in the first place.
Instead they are busily animating the ‘makers and shakers’ of our world with loads of fake money to prematurely build a global civilization whilst running roughshod over all of our personal and collective sovereignty to get there. Those who execute the plans have no idea that they too will be ‘on the menu’ in a later phase after being of use in the earlier ones!
In order to perform this slight-of-hand, they require global problems (such as those above) to provide the thin lines of plausibility to their ends. All the while they have been telling the rest of us that we spread like a virus (like in the film: Matrix).
They believe the lie that “the ends justify the means” when the truth is, the ends are fashioned by their means. All ends are inextricably tied to the means used to arrive at them. We see the results of their lie when they develop technologies too soon, weaponize them and insert control mechanisms into them.
Everywhere there is artificiality: from AI (artificial intelligence) to artificial poverty (austerity); from artificial understanding (category theory) to artificial philosophy (systems theory, chaos theory,…); from artificial physics (Higg’s Boson, Big Bang,…) to artificial biology (synthetic biology in the video); from artificial finance (bankster bail-outs, inside trading, Libor, derivatives, CAFR,…) to fake money (central banking, money as debt); from artificial catastrophes (overpopulation, terrorism, war, financial collapse) to artificial scarcity (zero-sum resource mindset),… even artificial food (margarine, ‘ice cream’, and other fat-free junk, sweeteners,…), artificial people (robots) and artificial diversity (unchecked and unwanted immigration).
This video dovetails all of the aspects above and directs our attention towards premature globalisation arising out of the artificially created chaos around us. I’d like to know if we really want these kinds of people (who are only a small portion of our population) representing us in a galactic or even universal context?
Will our ‘representatives’ be proud of their ‘stewardship’ of humanity? Will they be able to show how they created constructive solutions to aid even the most needy of their own kind? Or will they need to keep a secret so large, that even our neighbors out there wouldn’t want anything to do with us? Humanity will never be trusted in a galactic or even universal context, if we don’t choose our way carefully now.