For further information see: Philos-Sophia Initiative.
For a discussion about the film with Christian Meoli of Arena Cinelounge, plus the premiere of the official theatrical trailer, see "The End Of Quantum Reality" Vlog.
18 October 2019
The End of Quantum Reality: Premiere on Jan 10 2020
For further information see: Philos-Sophia Initiative.
For a discussion about the film with Christian Meoli of Arena Cinelounge, plus the premiere of the official theatrical trailer, see "The End Of Quantum Reality" Vlog.
10 October 2019
A cosmic theophany
Concluding our series of posts on Dr Wolfgang Smith's 2019 monumental monograph: Physics & Vertical Causation, the End of Quantum Reality. (Angelico Press, 2019, also available on Amazon Kindle).
For further reading on this and related material, see the Philos-Sophia Initiative website.
According to Smith and the authorities he cites, the cosmos constitutes a theophany: a manifestation or appearance of God to man [from Greek θεοϕάνεια and θεοϕάνια (neuter plural), < θεός god + ϕαίνειν to show].
He recalls the parable of the three measures of meal (see previous post) and its relevance to the conception of a cosmic trichotomy, as signified by the cosmic icon (left). Here are the correspondences, tabulated:
Measure Macrocosm Microcosm
1st measure Cosmic centre point ''O'' Spirit
2nd measure Intermediary realm Soul (psyche, anima)
3rd measure Corporeal realm, moving ''P'' > Body & blood
Apart from the trichotomous correlation, there is also the use of the word ''measure'' itself, pointing to the very act of measurement by which the three cosmic domains were brought into being. The cosmic icon itself is produced by just such an act of measurement.
Smith brings to a close his reflections on the trichotomy by introducing his readers to the sapiential literature known as the ''Upanishads''[1].One of these ancient Sanskrit texts presents the tribhuvana, a theory of three states of consciousness or modes of knowing:
Readers may detect a correspondence to the three elements in the table of the three measures above. If the correspondence is valid, the dream state stands midway between the corporeal and the spiritual worlds in that it transcends the bound of space but not of time. It is true that in dreams we experience entities more or less like the things we perceive in the waking state, including their spatial boundaries, but they do not exist in space.
The state of ''dreamless sleep'' poses a conundrum because it implies we do not access anything at all. Smith argues that, from a Christian point of vantage, this is explained by the effect of Original Sin. He cites St Paul's words:
Intriguingly, the upanishad makes a tantalisingly brief reference to a fourth state of consciousness: the turiya, which word simply means ''the Fourth''. It appears that the dream state transcends the waking state and the dreamless or spiritual state transcends the dream state. The dreamless or spiritual state partakes of what Smith earlier terms ''æviternity'' and is to be contrasted with the trans- or ultra-cosmic eternity of the ''leaven''. Now, because the turiya transcends even the dreamless/spiritual state, Smith concludes that it is both immanent and transcendent in respect to the integral cosmos. Accordingly, the turiya corresponds to the ''leaven'', to Christ and the Triune God!
Dr Smith concludes his monograph with a Postscript that is hard-hitting and yet moving. It seems wise to let his words speak for themselves. I have added subheadings.
How then did the Galilean intervention impact this Quest, this longing, however dimmed? It did so, ontologically, through the subjectivation of the qualities, and cosmographically, by the denial of geocentric cosmology. What remains, following these twin reductions, is on the one hand the phantasm of a clockwork universe driven by a horizontal causality, and on the other a decentered humanity: for when the cosmos loses its center, so does the microcosm, so as a rule does man.
Ottavio Leoni [Public domain]
And this brings us finally to the crucial point: in light of the facts delineated in this monograph, it appears that the Galilean arc of history is presently drawing to its close: the rediscovery of vertical causation alone—along with the resultant unmasking of Einsteinian relativity—implies as much.
For as we have come to see, the recognition of vertical causation opens the door to a rediscovery of the integral cosmos—the actual world in which we “live, and move, and have our being”—which not only exonerates geocentrism,but brings to light the existence and the ubiquity of the veritable Center.
Let Christians—and all who bow before God—rejoice: the scourge of relativism and irreligion has now been dealt a mortal blow! Following four centuries of intellectual chaos and de facto incarceration within his own distraught psyche, homo religiosus is now at liberty, once again, to step out into the God-given world, which proves to be—not a mechanism, nor some spooky quantum realm—but its very opposite: a theophany ultimately, in which:
[2] René Guénon: (1886-1951), also known as ʿAbd al-Wāḥid Yaḥyá, was a French author and intellectual,an influential figure in the domain of metaphysics, having written on topics ranging from sacred science to traditional studies.
[3] John Donne: (1572-1631): English poet and cleric in the Church of England. He is considered the pre-eminent representative of the metaphysical poets.
[4] Herman Wouk: (1915 – 2019) American author best known for historical fiction such as The Caine Mutiny (1951), The Winds of War and War and Remembrance, historical novels about World War II; and non-fiction such as This Is My God, an explanation of Judaism from a Modern Orthodox perspective.As Sloan said to Natalie in Herman Wouk’s The Winds of War, “Don’t you know, Natalie, that Christianity is dead and rotting since Galileo cut its throat” (p. 600).
For further reading on this and related material, see the Philos-Sophia Initiative website.
He recalls the parable of the three measures of meal (see previous post) and its relevance to the conception of a cosmic trichotomy, as signified by the cosmic icon (left). Here are the correspondences, tabulated:
Measure Macrocosm Microcosm
1st measure Cosmic centre point ''O'' Spirit
2nd measure Intermediary realm Soul (psyche, anima)
3rd measure Corporeal realm, moving ''P'' > Body & blood
Apart from the trichotomous correlation, there is also the use of the word ''measure'' itself, pointing to the very act of measurement by which the three cosmic domains were brought into being. The cosmic icon itself is produced by just such an act of measurement.
 |
| Mandukya Upanisad (part). Ms Sarah Welch. CC BY-SA 4.0. |
- the state of dreamless sleep [cosmic/spiritual]
- the dream state [intermediary]
- the waking state [corporeal]
Readers may detect a correspondence to the three elements in the table of the three measures above. If the correspondence is valid, the dream state stands midway between the corporeal and the spiritual worlds in that it transcends the bound of space but not of time. It is true that in dreams we experience entities more or less like the things we perceive in the waking state, including their spatial boundaries, but they do not exist in space.
The state of ''dreamless sleep'' poses a conundrum because it implies we do not access anything at all. Smith argues that, from a Christian point of vantage, this is explained by the effect of Original Sin. He cites St Paul's words:
[14] Animalis autem homo non percipit ea quae sunt Spiritus Dei : stultitia enim est illi, et non potest intelligere : quia spiritualiter examinatur.But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God; for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined.[1 Cor 2]Some people are able to make such progress in their spiritual life that they do gain access to the spiritual realm: to ''things that are of the Spirit of God.''
Intriguingly, the upanishad makes a tantalisingly brief reference to a fourth state of consciousness: the turiya, which word simply means ''the Fourth''. It appears that the dream state transcends the waking state and the dreamless or spiritual state transcends the dream state. The dreamless or spiritual state partakes of what Smith earlier terms ''æviternity'' and is to be contrasted with the trans- or ultra-cosmic eternity of the ''leaven''. Now, because the turiya transcends even the dreamless/spiritual state, Smith concludes that it is both immanent and transcendent in respect to the integral cosmos. Accordingly, the turiya corresponds to the ''leaven'', to Christ and the Triune God!
Postscript
Dr Smith concludes his monograph with a Postscript that is hard-hitting and yet moving. It seems wise to let his words speak for themselves. I have added subheadings.
Vertical causality: a dimension rediscovered
It remains to point out that having thus initiated what might broadly be termed a rediscovery of the vertical dimension, we may have prepared the ground for a shift in the Weltanschauung of Western civilization.
...a scientific metanoia, based on a rediscovery of vertical causation, is apt to inaugurate a cultural metanoia as well, which may “open doors” bolted shut centuries ago.
Galileo and Einstein unmasked
...the decentralization of the Earth goes hand in hand with a corresponding decentralization of man.
What has in effect been lost are both the macro– and microcosmic manifestation of that central point in the cosmic icon: that “pivot around which the primordial wheel revolves.” There are in truth two centers: the macrocosmic and its counterpart in the microcosm, the anthropos; and the two centers are in fact inseparable. How, then, are they connected? And by now the answer cannot but stare us in the face: that universal and transcendent Center of the cosmos is connected to its counterpart in man by an act of vertical causality, which is none other than the cosmogenetic Act itself. Neither spatial distance nor temporal duration, thus, separates our Center from that “pivot” around which “the primordial wheel revolves.” And this, I surmise, constitutes the Mystery wise men have pondered ever since the world began: their Quest has ever been for that “punto dello stelo” hidden deep within the heart, which is “the eye of the needle” through which “the rich man” cannot pass, the “narrow gate” the “pure in heart” alone can enter.
 |
| Galileo. British Museum. 1624. |
Ottavio Leoni [Public domain]
The overall impact of the Galilean intervention proves thus to be twofold: on the one hand what René Guénon[2] refers to as “the reign of quantity” engendered by Cartesian bifurcation, and on the other what might well be termed “the reign of relativity” symptomatic of a decentralized humanity in a decentralized universe. The congruity of God, man, and cosmos became thus newly compromised, and in consequence of this breach the anthropos himself has begun to disintegrate at an unprecedented rate: the Galilean impact upon humanity could thus be viewed as a second Fall.
In light of these reflections it is evident that the impact of the Galilean revolution upon Christianity and Christian culture at large was in fact bound to be fatal. Christian civilization has need of the pre-Galilean worldview—and this fact was recognized from the start by those who had “eyes to see”: think of the impassioned words of John Donne,[3] penned in the year 1611, when the Galilean revolution had barely begun: “And new philosophy calls all in doubt,” he laments; “’Tis all in pieces, all coherence gone,” he cries! Yet no one has made the point more sharply than Herman Wouk[4] when he proclaimed that Christianity has been dying “ever since Galileo cut its throat.” I find it tragic that our contemporary theologians and churchmen seem, almost without exception, to have not so much as the faintest idea what Herman Wouk was talking about—which only goes to show, however, how profoundly right he was.
 |
| Einstein. [Kadumago, CC BY 4.0] |
For as we have come to see, the recognition of vertical causation opens the door to a rediscovery of the integral cosmos—the actual world in which we “live, and move, and have our being”—which not only exonerates geocentrism,but brings to light the existence and the ubiquity of the veritable Center.
The cosmos as theophany
Let Christians—and all who bow before God—rejoice: the scourge of relativism and irreligion has now been dealt a mortal blow! Following four centuries of intellectual chaos and de facto incarceration within his own distraught psyche, homo religiosus is now at liberty, once again, to step out into the God-given world, which proves to be—not a mechanism, nor some spooky quantum realm—but its very opposite: a theophany ultimately, in which:
[20] ....the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.[1] upanishad: Sanskrit upa-nishád, < upa near to + ni-shad to sit or lie down. As when a student sits at the feet of his magister. In Sanskrit literature, one or other of various speculative treatises chiefly dealing with the Deity, creation, and existence, and forming a division of the Vedic literature.
Invisibilia enim ipsius, a creatura mundi, per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta, conspiciuntur : sempiterna quoque ejus virtus, et divinitas : ita ut sint inexcusabiles.[Rom 1]
[2] René Guénon: (1886-1951), also known as ʿAbd al-Wāḥid Yaḥyá, was a French author and intellectual,an influential figure in the domain of metaphysics, having written on topics ranging from sacred science to traditional studies.
[3] John Donne: (1572-1631): English poet and cleric in the Church of England. He is considered the pre-eminent representative of the metaphysical poets.
[4] Herman Wouk: (1915 – 2019) American author best known for historical fiction such as The Caine Mutiny (1951), The Winds of War and War and Remembrance, historical novels about World War II; and non-fiction such as This Is My God, an explanation of Judaism from a Modern Orthodox perspective.As Sloan said to Natalie in Herman Wouk’s The Winds of War, “Don’t you know, Natalie, that Christianity is dead and rotting since Galileo cut its throat” (p. 600).
09 October 2019
Leaven from Heaven
Continuing our series of posts on Dr Wolfgang Smith's 2019 monumental monograph: Physics & Vertical Causation, the End of Quantum Reality. (Angelico Press, 2019, also available on Amazon Kindle).
For further reading on this and related material, see the Philos-Sophia Initiative website.
We are now approaching the end of Dr Smith's final chapter, entitled ''Pondering the Cosmic Icon''. His final reflections crown his earlier achievements by examining whether the sacred literature of mankind supports or even sanctions the notion of a trichotomous cosmos.
He cites, for example, the following verse from the Bible, attributed to Sophia (Wisdom):
The next reference is to a parable in the Gospel of St Matthew. Here is the relevant verse:
fermentum, i, n. contr. for fervimentum, from fervo, ferveo, that which causes fermentation, leaven, yeast, ferment.
ferveō, ferbuī, 2, n., and fervō, fervī, 3, n.: to boil; (fig.), to blaze, be bright; flash; glow; stir, be alive, teeming; move, speed on; rage.
abs-condo, condi and condĭdi, condĭtum and consum, 3, v. a. to put away, conceal carefully, hide,to make invisible, to cover;
fărīna, ae, f. far, ground corn, meal, flour.
satum, i, n., = σάτον, Hebrew measure of corn, etc., containing about a modius and a half (eccl. Lat.), Vulg. Gen. 18, 6; id. Matt. 13, 33; id. Luc. 13, 21.
fermento, āvi, ātum, 1, v. a. id., to cause to rise or ferment; in pass., to rise, ferment.
Smith proposes a striking interpretation of this parable and its language.
In answer to the question: Who is the ''woman''? he answers: none other than Sophia (Wisdom), see the verse from Proverbs above.
The three measures of meal correspond to the three macrocosmic realms:
When Pilate asked Christ whether He was king of the Jews, His reply included the following:
But Christ was also to explain that this Kingdom is within each of us:
Smith develops his reflections upon the ''leaven'' or Kingdom of Heaven by citing the parable in which Christ compares the Kingdom of Heaven to a wedding feast (see Matthew, 22 : 1-14). We are invited to His Wedding Feast to enjoy eternal life. When Christ arrived in Bethany, after the death of Lazarus, He explained to Martha:
[The reviewer noted briefly at this point certain harmonies and parallels adding further force to this understanding: the Israelites pass through the waters of the Red Sea from the land of bondage into a wilderness where Manna (the Hebrew word is written as ''Man'' in Latin) is miraculously provided to keep them alive, enabling them to continue to the Promised Land. This Manna is honoured by being placed in the tabernacle and later in the Holy of Holies in the Temple.
In the New Testament, John describes the feeding of the multitudes and then records the following words of Christ, particularly pertinent to the present discussion:
At the Last Supper, Our Lord said the First Mass and gave Himself (body, blood, soul and divinity) to His apostles under the form of bread in Holy Communion.]
Tomorrow, Deo volente, we shall conclude our review of Dr Smith's monograph. This will be in time to offer our faltering words as a present to the Sancta Dei Genitrix, in honour of her feastday on Friday, the Motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
For further reading on this and related material, see the Philos-Sophia Initiative website.
We are now approaching the end of Dr Smith's final chapter, entitled ''Pondering the Cosmic Icon''. His final reflections crown his earlier achievements by examining whether the sacred literature of mankind supports or even sanctions the notion of a trichotomous cosmos.
He cites, for example, the following verse from the Bible, attributed to Sophia (Wisdom):
[27] Quando praeparabat caelos, aderam; quando certa lege et gyro[1] vallabat abyssos; [Vulgate][1] gȳrus, i, m., = γῦρος, a circle, esp. that which is described by a horse in its movements (mostly poet.; cf.: circus, circulus, orbis, orbita).
When he prepared the heavens, I was present: when with a certain law and compass he enclosed the depths:[Douay-Rheims]
When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:[King James] [Prov 8]
The next reference is to a parable in the Gospel of St Matthew. Here is the relevant verse:
[33] Aliam parabolam locutus est eis : Similis est regnum caelorum fermento, quod acceptum mulier abscondit in farinae satis tribus, donec fermentatum est totum.[Vulgate]Latin vocab: It is worth noting the derivation of fermentum (via fervimentum) from ferveo which also gives rise to fervour and comparing it with the ''tongues of fire'' of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost.
Another parable he spoke to them: The kingdom of heaven is like to leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, until the whole was leavened.[Douay-Rheims]
Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.[King James] [Matt 13]
fermentum, i, n. contr. for fervimentum, from fervo, ferveo, that which causes fermentation, leaven, yeast, ferment.
ferveō, ferbuī, 2, n., and fervō, fervī, 3, n.: to boil; (fig.), to blaze, be bright; flash; glow; stir, be alive, teeming; move, speed on; rage.
abs-condo, condi and condĭdi, condĭtum and consum, 3, v. a. to put away, conceal carefully, hide,to make invisible, to cover;
fărīna, ae, f. far, ground corn, meal, flour.
satum, i, n., = σάτον, Hebrew measure of corn, etc., containing about a modius and a half (eccl. Lat.), Vulg. Gen. 18, 6; id. Matt. 13, 33; id. Luc. 13, 21.
fermento, āvi, ātum, 1, v. a. id., to cause to rise or ferment; in pass., to rise, ferment.
Smith proposes a striking interpretation of this parable and its language.
In answer to the question: Who is the ''woman''? he answers: none other than Sophia (Wisdom), see the verse from Proverbs above.
The three measures of meal correspond to the three macrocosmic realms:
- the spiritual or aeviternal
- the intermediary and
- the corporeal;
- the spiritual
- the psychic (pertaining to the psyche, anima or soul) and
- the corporeal.
 |
| Christ before Pilate. JJ Tissot. Brooklyn Museum. |
[36] Respondit Jesus : Regnum meum non est de hoc mundo. Si ex hoc mundo esset regnum meum, ministri mei utique decertarent ut non traderer Judaeis : nunc autem regnum meum non est hinc.
Jesus answered: My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would certainly strive that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now my kingdom is not from hence.[John 18]
[20] Interrogatus autem a pharisaeis : Quando venit regnum Dei? respondens eis, dixit : Non venit regnum Dei cum observatione :It is within us in the fullest conceivable sense, within each of the elements of our tripartite being: the spiritual, the psychic (pertaining to the psyche, anima or soul) and the corporeal. The leaven, however, is added to the three measures of meal; in fact, it is hidden and thus invisible. This is in keeping with the notion that the Kingdom of Heaven is transcendent, superseding the corporeal, the intermediary and the cosmic centre point ''O'' of the cosmic icon.
And being asked by the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come? he answered them, and said: The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
[21] neque dicent : Ecce hic, aut ecce illic. Ecce enim regnum Dei intra vos est.
Neither shall they say: Behold here, or behold there. For lo, the kingdom of God is within you.[Luke 17]
Smith develops his reflections upon the ''leaven'' or Kingdom of Heaven by citing the parable in which Christ compares the Kingdom of Heaven to a wedding feast (see Matthew, 22 : 1-14). We are invited to His Wedding Feast to enjoy eternal life. When Christ arrived in Bethany, after the death of Lazarus, He explained to Martha:
[25] Dixit ei Jesus : Ego sum resurrectio et vita : qui credit in me, etiam si mortuus fuerit, vivet : Jesus said to her: I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, although he be dead, shall live:[John 11]His conclusion follows unerringly from his reasoning:
The “leaven,” in the final count, proves thus to be Christ Himself: it is He that resides at the core of all being as the font of all that is good. Like the actual leaven in the meal, it is He that renders the cosmos hospitable and ''flavoursome.'' In all that is good, He is the Goodness; and in all that is beautiful or sublime we catch a glimpse of His presence.
[The reviewer noted briefly at this point certain harmonies and parallels adding further force to this understanding: the Israelites pass through the waters of the Red Sea from the land of bondage into a wilderness where Manna (the Hebrew word is written as ''Man'' in Latin) is miraculously provided to keep them alive, enabling them to continue to the Promised Land. This Manna is honoured by being placed in the tabernacle and later in the Holy of Holies in the Temple.
In the New Testament, John describes the feeding of the multitudes and then records the following words of Christ, particularly pertinent to the present discussion:
[31] Patres nostri manducaverunt manna in deserto, sicut scriptum est : Panem de caelo dedit eis manducare.
Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
[32] Dixit ergo eis Jesus : Amen, amen dico vobis : non Moyses dedit vobis panem de caelo, sed Pater meus dat vobis panem de caelo verum.
Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
[33] Panis enim Dei est, qui de caelo descendit, et dat vitam mundo.
For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world.
[34] Dixerunt ergo ad eum : Domine, semper da nobis panem hunc.
They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread.
[35] Dixit autem eis Jesus : Ego sum panis vitae : qui venit ad me, non esuriet, et qui credit in me, non sitiet umquam.
And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.[John 6]
 |
| First Holy Communion. JJ Tissot. Brooklyn Museum. |
Tomorrow, Deo volente, we shall conclude our review of Dr Smith's monograph. This will be in time to offer our faltering words as a present to the Sancta Dei Genitrix, in honour of her feastday on Friday, the Motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
08 October 2019
Further reflections on the cosmic icon
Continuing our series of posts on Dr Wolfgang Smith's 2019 monumental monograph: Physics & Vertical Causation, the End of Quantum Reality. (Angelico Press, 2019, also available on Amazon Kindle).
For further reading on this and related material, see the Philos-Sophia Initiative website.
We are working our way through Dr Smith's final chapter,entitled ''Pondering the Cosmic Icon''. He added it after the publication of the first edition of his monograph and it is rich in insights drawn from numerous sources, Eastern and Western.
A striking feature of the cosmic icon is that the interior, representing the intermediary domain, visibly dwarfs the circumference (representing the corporeal world). The corporeal is the one-dimensional boundary of the intermediary.
Look at point P on the circumference and note that it represents both a moment of time AND the corporeal world at that moment of time. This dual identity disqualifies relativistic physics in its entirety at a single stroke. There can be no such thing as ''space-time''.
Smith then makes a remarkable assertion:
[Reviewer's note: The cosmic icon as explained by Smith caused me to make a few notes in my Kindle edition at this point:
A compass has three components: 1) the point in the centre ''O''; 2) the moving point ''P''; 3) the vertex ''V'' proceeding from 1) & 2). Similarly, we have ''O'' and ''P'', with the radius ''R'' proceeding from both. This recalls the Blessed Trinity: Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus. Note that 2) descends to the corporeal domain (the circumference).
In our corporeal world of time and space, we cannot live and move and have our being unless ''P'' continues to move; ''P'' cannot move without ''V''; neither ''P'' nor ''V'' can operate without ''O''; so each of the three participate equally but in different ways; ''O'' is the point of origin or initiator; God the Son descends from His Eternal Father to our world; He and the Father are inseparably linked in love so powerful as to attain a vertex in the Person of the Holy Ghost. Consider the Trinity at the Baptism of Christ: the Father is the nunc stans beyond space and time at ''O'', His beloved Son is in the Jordan at ''P'' and the Holy Ghost links the Two. I am left wondering whether the notorious ''Filioque'' debate between the Eastern and Roman Christians is not after all a merely semantic problem.The provenance of the Holy Ghost is in truth from God the Father as His originator but is in another sense from the fire of love between the Father and the Son.]
The revolving cosmos and the movement of the ''wanderers'' (the planets) suggests to Smith the very ''music of the spheres''. He notes quantitative and qualitative properties of this cosmic movement, seeing in the latter a foundation of truth for the ancient ''superstition'' of astrology. Readers interested in Smith's argument regarding astrology should study the details in this chapter, including his references to Genesis 1:4 and Matt 2:2.
In the next post, we shall look at the evidence in sacred literature for the conception of a trichotomous universe.
To be continued.
For further reading on this and related material, see the Philos-Sophia Initiative website.
We are working our way through Dr Smith's final chapter,entitled ''Pondering the Cosmic Icon''. He added it after the publication of the first edition of his monograph and it is rich in insights drawn from numerous sources, Eastern and Western.
Look at point P on the circumference and note that it represents both a moment of time AND the corporeal world at that moment of time. This dual identity disqualifies relativistic physics in its entirety at a single stroke. There can be no such thing as ''space-time''.
Smith then makes a remarkable assertion:
Einsteinian physics may well prove to be the most profoundly erroneous theory ever seriously entertained, and doubtless the example par excellence of ''mixing apples and oranges.''Returning to the cyclicity of time, the author invites us to keep our eye upon the moving point P in the construction and observes that the ''now'' of time is inseparable from the ''now'' of the corporeal world. Time and the corporeal cosmos prove to be inseparable. Furthermore, it s possible to assert that , just as the compass ''sweeps out'' time, the cosmos at large ''sweeps out'' time as it rotates diurnally about the earth, the fixed centre.
 |
| The Baptism of Christ. JJ Tissot. Brooklyn Museum. |
A compass has three components: 1) the point in the centre ''O''; 2) the moving point ''P''; 3) the vertex ''V'' proceeding from 1) & 2). Similarly, we have ''O'' and ''P'', with the radius ''R'' proceeding from both. This recalls the Blessed Trinity: Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus. Note that 2) descends to the corporeal domain (the circumference).
In our corporeal world of time and space, we cannot live and move and have our being unless ''P'' continues to move; ''P'' cannot move without ''V''; neither ''P'' nor ''V'' can operate without ''O''; so each of the three participate equally but in different ways; ''O'' is the point of origin or initiator; God the Son descends from His Eternal Father to our world; He and the Father are inseparably linked in love so powerful as to attain a vertex in the Person of the Holy Ghost. Consider the Trinity at the Baptism of Christ: the Father is the nunc stans beyond space and time at ''O'', His beloved Son is in the Jordan at ''P'' and the Holy Ghost links the Two. I am left wondering whether the notorious ''Filioque'' debate between the Eastern and Roman Christians is not after all a merely semantic problem.The provenance of the Holy Ghost is in truth from God the Father as His originator but is in another sense from the fire of love between the Father and the Son.]
The revolving cosmos and the movement of the ''wanderers'' (the planets) suggests to Smith the very ''music of the spheres''. He notes quantitative and qualitative properties of this cosmic movement, seeing in the latter a foundation of truth for the ancient ''superstition'' of astrology. Readers interested in Smith's argument regarding astrology should study the details in this chapter, including his references to Genesis 1:4 and Matt 2:2.
In the next post, we shall look at the evidence in sacred literature for the conception of a trichotomous universe.
To be continued.
07 October 2019
Pondering the Cosmic Icon
Continuing our series of posts on Dr Wolfgang Smith's 2019 monumental monograph: Physics & Vertical Causation, the End of Quantum Reality. (Angelico Press, 2019, also available on Amazon Kindle).
For further reading on this and related material, see the Philos-Sophia Initiative website.
Dr Smith's final chapter is entitled ''Pondering the Cosmic Icon''. He added it after the publication of the first edition of his monograph and it is rich in insights drawn from numerous sources, Eastern and Western.
He begins for example with a line attributed to the Sufi mystic and poet, Mahmoud Shabistari (1288-1340): From the point comes a line, then a circle. Before developing this point, however, he reminds us that Plato (427-347 BC) taught that all ''science'', inclusive of metaphysics, was ultimately a matter of ''seeing''. Now, a man may see with his eyes but he may also see with the ''eye of the intellect''. Seeing with the corporeal eyes has a role to play in the metaphysical realm. Smith introduces an important notion:
For further reading on this and related material, see the Philos-Sophia Initiative website.
Dr Smith's final chapter is entitled ''Pondering the Cosmic Icon''. He added it after the publication of the first edition of his monograph and it is rich in insights drawn from numerous sources, Eastern and Western.
He begins for example with a line attributed to the Sufi mystic and poet, Mahmoud Shabistari (1288-1340): From the point comes a line, then a circle. Before developing this point, however, he reminds us that Plato (427-347 BC) taught that all ''science'', inclusive of metaphysics, was ultimately a matter of ''seeing''. Now, a man may see with his eyes but he may also see with the ''eye of the intellect''. Seeing with the corporeal eyes has a role to play in the metaphysical realm. Smith introduces an important notion:
...just as visual forms can facilitate the perception of corporeal entities, so too can they catalyze an intellective perception pertaining to the metaphysical realm.
An object of visual perception can enable the intellective perception of a metaphysical truth. The object becomes, therefore, a ''metaphysical icon''.
Plato understood this and his Academy attributed a major role to the study of geometry, cautioning that no-one ignorant of geometry should enter it. Geometry was one of the seven subjects in the Trivium and Quadrivium which Plato describes in The Republic and which later formed the basis of the Master of Arts degree in medieval Christendom. Incidentally, this is why graduates from Oxford and Cambridge can apply for their MA in the seventh year after matriculation.
Having laid this groundwork, Smith proceeds to consider a simple geometric figure which he prefers to call a ''Euclidian'' figure, meaning that it is constructed using the Euclidean instruments: a straight-edge and a compass. The simplest is a circle.
The first step is to determine the ''first point'' or ''origin'', ie in this example, the centre ''O'' of the circle. It must be noted that neither of the two Euclidian instruments can do this. The geometer himself does this as if by fiat.
Before drawing the circumference with the compass, the geometer must first use the straight-edge to measure out the radius from ''O'' to a point ''P''. This produces the image illustrated. Smith goes on to explain that what renders the figure iconic is not the final, static, two-dimensional image but the construction itself. When the compass sweeps or traces out the circumference, it brings into play the two cosmic bounds of space and time: space, by terminating the radius OP and time by the single but continuous act of sweeping out the circumference. Intriguingly, Plato referred to ''time'' as ''the moving image of eternity.'' In our construction, one compass point stands at the centre O, the nunc stans, whilst the other, its moving image, sweeps out the circumference. The centre O stands above (or apart from) time.
Developing his iconology a little further, Smith proposes the following correspondences:
- the centre O represents the spiritual realm, transcending both time and space
- the interior of the circle, enclosed by the circumference, represents the intermediary domain, subject to time alone
- the circumference represents the corporeal domain subject to both temporal and spatial bounds.
From these considerations, Smith asserts that the icon entails metaphysical equations upon which may be based metaphysical theorems.
- The fixed point O represents aeviternity. It is impacted by time, represented by the moving point P. There is however a distinction between authentic eternity and aeviternity (impacted by time).
- The corporeal domain (circumference) emanates from the intermediary (interior) through the imposition of the spatial bound. The intermediary has therefore primacy with respect to the corporeal.
- The moving point of the circumference represents the corporeal domain at that very instant; the moment of time imposes itself upon all of space.
- The moving point, swept out by the compass, returns to its starting point. Time is cyclical.
In the next section, Smith invites us to reflect upon the significance of these metaphysical claims, with some most surprising conclusions for Einsteinian physics.
To be continued.
05 October 2019
Stepping back: ontology
Continuing our series of posts on Dr Wolfgang Smith's 2019 monumental monograph: Physics & Vertical Causation, the End of Quantum Reality. (Angelico Press, 2019, also available on Amazon Kindle).
For further reading on this and related material, see the Philos-Sophia Initiative website.
In his penultimate chapter, Dr Smith revisits the tripartite universe, viewed with an ontological perspective. He prays in aid an ancient cosmic icon, see left. The circumference stands for the corporeal world (bounded by space and time); the interior for the intermediary (bounded by time alone); the centre for the spiritual (subjected to neither bound).
Having recalled that time belongs to the cosmos alone, he argues that the cosmos originated in a cosmogenetic Act. This exemplifies vertical causality (VC). He then poses the question: whence does horizontal causality (HC) arise?
It is VC that gives rise to HC. HC entails a transmission through space, the corporeal domain is the one and only spatio-temporal domain and therefore the sphere of action of HC is the corporeal domain. The salient feature of HC s that it has to do exclusively with quantities that are inherently spatial. HC, as known to physics, assumes the form of a differential equation relating spatial and temporal magnitudes, and reduces thus to a ''law of motion.'' The fundamental laws of physics—expressive of horizontal causality—are based on vertical causation.
As one ascends the scala naturae within the corporeal domain itself, the efficacy of horizontal causality is progressively diminished through the incursion of vertical modes. In terms of the traditional ''mineral, plant, animal, and anthropic'' partition, it appears that the hegemony of horizontal causation is restricted at best to the ''mineral'' or inorganic domain.
The first edition of Smith's monograph ended with this chapter and a call to others to explore the implications of his etiology for the sciences, for philosophy and for an understanding of man. A second edition included a new final chapter with his further reflections on the cosmic icon. We shall look at this chapter in our final post.
To be continued.
For further reading on this and related material, see the Philos-Sophia Initiative website.
Having recalled that time belongs to the cosmos alone, he argues that the cosmos originated in a cosmogenetic Act. This exemplifies vertical causality (VC). He then poses the question: whence does horizontal causality (HC) arise?
It is VC that gives rise to HC. HC entails a transmission through space, the corporeal domain is the one and only spatio-temporal domain and therefore the sphere of action of HC is the corporeal domain. The salient feature of HC s that it has to do exclusively with quantities that are inherently spatial. HC, as known to physics, assumes the form of a differential equation relating spatial and temporal magnitudes, and reduces thus to a ''law of motion.'' The fundamental laws of physics—expressive of horizontal causality—are based on vertical causation.
As one ascends the scala naturae within the corporeal domain itself, the efficacy of horizontal causality is progressively diminished through the incursion of vertical modes. In terms of the traditional ''mineral, plant, animal, and anthropic'' partition, it appears that the hegemony of horizontal causation is restricted at best to the ''mineral'' or inorganic domain.
The first edition of Smith's monograph ended with this chapter and a call to others to explore the implications of his etiology for the sciences, for philosophy and for an understanding of man. A second edition included a new final chapter with his further reflections on the cosmic icon. We shall look at this chapter in our final post.
To be continued.
04 October 2019
The Tripartite Cosmos
For further reading on this and related material, see the Philos-Sophia Initiative website.
Dr Smith approaches the sixth part of his magnificent monograph with a chapter entitled ''The Emergence of the Tripartite Cosmos.'' Recalling the notion of a ''clockwork universe'' bequeathed by Galileo and Descartes, he explains that this very clockwork causality has been invalidated by the advent of quantum theory. The quantum world, however, cannot be comprehended without reference to the sense-perceptible or corporeal world. Strictly speaking, the quantum world does not in fact exist but consists rather of particles that are ''potentiae''. Physics is primarily concerned not with what things are but how they move. Physics is not concerned with Descartes' res extensae at all. Quantumn physics may have rejected Cartesian presuppositions, but the physicists have not. Hence the quantum reality problem proves for them insoluble.
The solution lies in ackowledging vertical causality, inferred (in part) by the very act of measurement in physics which requires an instantaneous (supra-temporal) transition from the corporeal to the physical domain.
What is missing in that so-called quantum world, as we have noted, is the morphe or yang-side of the coin: and that is precisely what vertical causality supplies or brings into play in the act of measurement, and in so doing, “actualizes” the quantum world “in part.”Smith proceeds to consider how this vertical causality impacts the biological sciences. The current consensus among most biologists views a living plant or animal as simply a ''super-complicated'' structure or machine, conceived in purely physical terms. This proves to be yet another scientistic myth, to which the public at large is vulnerable by virtue of the vast body of minutiae established bona fide concerning living organisms. What in fact differentiates the animate from the inanimate is the vertical causation emanating from a living organism’s substantial form.
The chapter ends with a brief consideration of ''free will''. A human soul or anima is distinguished from that of a plan or animal because it is a rational soul. The difference cannot be attributed to different horizontal causes because the difference is one of kind, not of degree. More generally, there exist gaps between species and genera which no amount of horizontal causation can bridge. The biosphere exemplifies design and hierarchy. Scientists wedded to horizontal causality cannot accept this and they are obliged to adhere to some version of an evolutionary hypothesis, despite its being untenable.
In his penultimate chapter, draws together a number of strands from previous chapter under the title: ''The Primacy of Vertical Causality''.
02 October 2019
Einstein, CMB & the multiverse
Continuing our series of posts on Dr Wolfgang Smith's 2019 monumental monograph: Physics & Vertical Causation, the End of Quantum Reality. (Angelico Press, 2019, also available on Amazon Kindle)
For further reading on this and related material, see the Philos-Sophia Initiative website.
In this post, we shall conclude our review of Chapter 5. Some of the argument is very technical and we shall limit ourselves to giving readers a flavour of Dr Smith's reasoning.
Firstly, he lays to rest a widely held belief that E = mc² is essential to Einstein's relativity principle. It derives in point of fact from Maxwell's equations for electromagnetic fields (1865) and has no bearing on relativistic physics (as Einstein admitted in 1950). Smith then addresses the question of whether Einstein's theory is supported or controverted by empirical evidence. The discussion is admittedly quite technical. Readers sufficiently interested may study the empirical arguments against Einsteinian relativity that he derives from the Sagnac experiment (1913) and the way it is supported by the actual, rather than reported, practice of how the Global Positioning System (GPS) works.
Next, he describes how:
Smith concludes his chapter with two ''hammer blows'' to the received, scientific weltanschaung :
The CMB is regarded by theorists as a picture of the universe some 300,000 years after the so-called Big Bang. NASA's COBE (1989), WMAP (2001) and PLANCK (2009) satellites were initially sent out to find proof of evidence of the Big Bang by measuring the cosmic microwave background (CMB) as a uniform energy fallout across space.
Data from the COBE satellite had suggested the existence of a pattern or ''axis'' in the CMB, spreading alarm among astrophysicists who came to describe it as ''the axis of evil'', because it undermined the very notion of the Big Bang. Such a cosmology hinges upon the so-called Copernican Principle, which stipulates that the cosmos is perfectly homogeneous when viewed on a sufficiently large scale. Besides exemplifying the Einsteinian denial of “design” to perfection, this Principle also proves indispensable to relativistic cosmology on technical grounds: for unless one postulates global symmetries which epitomize the very ''design'' Einsteinians are pledged to deny, it constitutes the one and only condition under which the pertinent field equations can actually be solved for the cosmos at large.
In the hope of putting these fears to rest, another satellite, named PLANCK, specially equipped with the latest instruments—and lavishly protected against all conceivable ''extraneous'' radiation which might cause a non-existent axis to emerge—was put into orbit in 2009. When the Planck results came in, the dreaded axis was still there, plain as day—as if drawn by the Finger of God. As Smith wryly notes,
In the last section of this chapter, Smith reminds the reader of the so-called argument deriving from 'fine tuning' in the universe. By the middle of the last century, atomic physics and molecular biology had arrived at the conclusion that the existence of man on Earth appeared ''so vastly improbable as to be, in effect, miraculous.''
Smith explains that the central mystery resides in the fact that an exceedingly fine balance of the four fundamental fundamental forces known to physics is needed to render organic molecules stable enough to exist, which means that the basic constants of physics need be almost “infinitesimally” close to their given values. The default, almost dogmatic modern assumption is in favour of some form of evolution to explain life on earth. But how, Smith asks, could such a thing as the fine-structure constant, for example—a numerical constant of physics which happens to be 7.2973531 x 10-3, failing which “we” would not exist—how could that constant have conceivably “evolved”? Following the lead of Stephen Hawking, a considerable portion of the scientific elite have opted for an infinite ensemble of possible universes, termed the “multi-verse,” as the ultimate solution to the riddle posed by the existence of our world.
Smith's last paragraph comes full circle back to the title of the chapter: The War on Design:
To be continued.
[1] "The Principle" is the title of a film, released in 2014. It brings to light new scientific observations challenging the Copernican Principle. The film brings before the public eye astonishing results from recent large-scale surveys of our Universe which disclose surprising evidence of a preferred direction in the cosmos, aligned with our supposedly insignificant Earth. The film explores from all sides the question of Earth’s station in the universe and whether it could, in fact, have a unique importance.”
“The Principle” features narration by Kate Mulgrew (“Star Trek Voyager”, “Orange Is The New Black”, and “Ryan’s Hope”), stunning animations by BUF Compagnie Paris (“Life of Pi”, “Thor”), and commentary from the most prominent scientists of our time, including George Ellis, Michio Kaku, Julian Barbour, Lawrence Krauss, and Max Tegmark.
Director: Katheryne Thomas; Writer: Rick DeLano
For further reading on this and related material, see the Philos-Sophia Initiative website.
In this post, we shall conclude our review of Chapter 5. Some of the argument is very technical and we shall limit ourselves to giving readers a flavour of Dr Smith's reasoning.
Firstly, he lays to rest a widely held belief that E = mc² is essential to Einstein's relativity principle. It derives in point of fact from Maxwell's equations for electromagnetic fields (1865) and has no bearing on relativistic physics (as Einstein admitted in 1950). Smith then addresses the question of whether Einstein's theory is supported or controverted by empirical evidence. The discussion is admittedly quite technical. Readers sufficiently interested may study the empirical arguments against Einsteinian relativity that he derives from the Sagnac experiment (1913) and the way it is supported by the actual, rather than reported, practice of how the Global Positioning System (GPS) works.
Next, he describes how:
the effort to “marry” quantum theory with Einsteinian physics—which has been ongoing for a very long time, has enlisted a galaxy of brilliant physicists, and engendered some of the most dazzling examples of mathematical wizardry the world has ever seen—has failed abysmally to achieve its objective. And I vividly recall Michio Kaku, in a documentary film, The Principle,[1] stretching his arms wide and raising his voice as he informs us that relativity and quantum theory differ ultimately ''by one hundred twenty orders of magnitude!'' .... I regard it as yet another triumph of quantum physics that it has spurned the proffered union.The discussion then shifts to astrophysics, but here again, Einsteinian physics has ''not fared too well.''
The grand expectations, fueled by the mystique of a ''four-dimensional space-time'' in which moving rods contract, clocks slow down, and the continuum itself curves in unimaginable ways, have not materialized...The almost limitless ingenuity of mathematicians has been invoked to prop up the shaky structure. When, to give just one example, it turns out that there is not enough matter in the universe to produce gravitational fields strong enough for the formation of stars and galaxies, there are mathematical geniuses with a flair for particle physics who can make up the difference with something termed “dark matter.” This illustrates a strategy for keeping a scientific theory alive by means of ad hoc postulates, assumptions ''picked out of thin air'' for that very purpose. This technique has long served as a mainstay of Darwinist biology, even after the fatal blows suffered by the discovery of DNA and Dembski's work on Complex Specified Information.
Smith concludes his chapter with two ''hammer blows'' to the received, scientific weltanschaung :
- recent discoveries in connection with the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB); and
- the fine tuning necessary for human life on earth.
CMB
The CMB is regarded by theorists as a picture of the universe some 300,000 years after the so-called Big Bang. NASA's COBE (1989), WMAP (2001) and PLANCK (2009) satellites were initially sent out to find proof of evidence of the Big Bang by measuring the cosmic microwave background (CMB) as a uniform energy fallout across space.
Data from the COBE satellite had suggested the existence of a pattern or ''axis'' in the CMB, spreading alarm among astrophysicists who came to describe it as ''the axis of evil'', because it undermined the very notion of the Big Bang. Such a cosmology hinges upon the so-called Copernican Principle, which stipulates that the cosmos is perfectly homogeneous when viewed on a sufficiently large scale. Besides exemplifying the Einsteinian denial of “design” to perfection, this Principle also proves indispensable to relativistic cosmology on technical grounds: for unless one postulates global symmetries which epitomize the very ''design'' Einsteinians are pledged to deny, it constitutes the one and only condition under which the pertinent field equations can actually be solved for the cosmos at large.
In the hope of putting these fears to rest, another satellite, named PLANCK, specially equipped with the latest instruments—and lavishly protected against all conceivable ''extraneous'' radiation which might cause a non-existent axis to emerge—was put into orbit in 2009. When the Planck results came in, the dreaded axis was still there, plain as day—as if drawn by the Finger of God. As Smith wryly notes,
Yet there is more to the story: for it happens that the plane defined by that circular axis coincides with the ecliptic of our solar system; and for Einsteinians this constitutes indeed a worst-case scenario: for what was supposed to be an accidental “speck” within a galaxy—which itself is supposedly but an accidental speck in a universe bereft of order, bereft of design—this ''accidental speck within an accidental speck'' turns out to define the global structure of the universe! At the risk of sounding anthropomorphic, I surmise “the Old One” may have smiled when he traced that axis.
Fine tuning and the ''multiverse''
In the last section of this chapter, Smith reminds the reader of the so-called argument deriving from 'fine tuning' in the universe. By the middle of the last century, atomic physics and molecular biology had arrived at the conclusion that the existence of man on Earth appeared ''so vastly improbable as to be, in effect, miraculous.''
Smith explains that the central mystery resides in the fact that an exceedingly fine balance of the four fundamental fundamental forces known to physics is needed to render organic molecules stable enough to exist, which means that the basic constants of physics need be almost “infinitesimally” close to their given values. The default, almost dogmatic modern assumption is in favour of some form of evolution to explain life on earth. But how, Smith asks, could such a thing as the fine-structure constant, for example—a numerical constant of physics which happens to be 7.2973531 x 10-3, failing which “we” would not exist—how could that constant have conceivably “evolved”? Following the lead of Stephen Hawking, a considerable portion of the scientific elite have opted for an infinite ensemble of possible universes, termed the “multi-verse,” as the ultimate solution to the riddle posed by the existence of our world.
Smith's last paragraph comes full circle back to the title of the chapter: The War on Design:
Now, all this is of course perfectly insane, and brings home the lengths to which scientists of repute are willing to go in this ongoing ''war against design.'' One cannot but ask oneself: whence comes this deep-rooted aversion—this profound animosity, one is tempted to say—to the very conception of God?
To be continued.
[1] "The Principle" is the title of a film, released in 2014. It brings to light new scientific observations challenging the Copernican Principle. The film brings before the public eye astonishing results from recent large-scale surveys of our Universe which disclose surprising evidence of a preferred direction in the cosmos, aligned with our supposedly insignificant Earth. The film explores from all sides the question of Earth’s station in the universe and whether it could, in fact, have a unique importance.”
“The Principle” features narration by Kate Mulgrew (“Star Trek Voyager”, “Orange Is The New Black”, and “Ryan’s Hope”), stunning animations by BUF Compagnie Paris (“Life of Pi”, “Thor”), and commentary from the most prominent scientists of our time, including George Ellis, Michio Kaku, Julian Barbour, Lawrence Krauss, and Max Tegmark.
Director: Katheryne Thomas; Writer: Rick DeLano
01 October 2019
Einstein, Relativity & Ideology
Continuing our series of posts on Dr Wolfgang Smith's 2019 monumental monograph: Physics & Vertical Causation, the End of Quantum Reality. (Angelico Press, 2019, also available on Amazon Kindle)
For further reading on this and related material, see the Philos-Sophia Initiative website.
Dr Smith contends that Einstein's preference for the ''Principle of Relativity'' is based in the final count not on scientific or empirical grounds but on ideological premises. This will involve quite a leap for those today who assume his principle reigns supreme, whether it be physicists or ordinary people with little or no technical background. The arguments of the remainder of his chapter are at points quite technical. I refer those interested in the details to Smith's own text. What follows aims to give a flavour of the reasoning involved.
Einstein inaugurated his ''special'' theory of relativity in 1905. In view of its extraordinary and revolutionary impact, Smith summarises its main elements and seeks to discover why Einstein felt a need to develop this particular theory.
Here is a very short summary of the historical background to Einstein's 1905 theory.
Ptolemy (c100- c170) had argued that the earth was the centre of the universe. The Christian Church and the Bible affirmed this geocentrism although it was refined occasionally, notably by Tycho Brahe (1546-1601). Copernicus (1473-1543), however, rejected geocentrism and argued for its replacement by a heliocentric model. He was later followed by Galileo (1564-1642) and Newton (1642-1727) subsequently seemed to have provided cast-iron mathematical proofs of heliocentrism. By the nineteenth century, everyone though the science was ''settled'': the earth revolved on its own axis and orbited the sun. All that remained was for scientists to prove the movement of the earth by means of the scientific method: an experiment involving observation and measurement. Several experiments took place, notably the Michelson-Morley series (beginning in 1887). The results of these experiments astonished the world of physics because no movement could be measured. This remained so even after repetitions of the experiment.
It is important to emphasise that Einstein's starting point was to accept that the earth did indeed move. The classical equations of mechanics (going back to Newton's Principia of 1687) and of electromagnetism (formulated by Clerk Maxwell in 1865) did not allow this conclusion. Hence, Einstein ''discovered'' (formulated) his ''special'' theory of relativity. He was able to use this theory to explain away the Michelson-Morley experiment's ''failure'' to detect movement by the earth. The problem for Einstein was that his theory was incompatible with Newtonian mechanics. As Smith notes at this point:
Smith himself argues that classical physics implies the very opposite of Einstein's postulate since one finds that physics itself defines a state of absolute rest (please see the Chapter for his arguments in favour of what he terms the ''Principle of Immobility''). He cites in support of his position a paper entitled “Newton-Machian analysis of a Neotychonian model of planetary motions”[2]—in which a physicist named Luka Popov calculates planetary orbits by means of Newtonian physics, based on a geocentric reference frame. Luka Popov’s result has broken the long-standing hegemony of heliocentrism. It demonstrates, on the basis of Newtonian mechanics, that it is equally legitimate to claim that the Sun rotates (annually) around the Earth: it all depends on your choice of coordinates, and geocentric coordinates are in fact legitimate.
Smith goes further, writing:
[1] Richard Charles "Dick" Lewontin (born March 29, 1929, New York City, to parents descended from Eastern European Jewish immigrants); an American evolutionary biologist, mathematician, geneticist, and social commentator. A leader in developing the mathematical basis of population genetics.
[2] Eur. J. Phys. 34, 2(2013): 383
For further reading on this and related material, see the Philos-Sophia Initiative website.
Dr Smith contends that Einstein's preference for the ''Principle of Relativity'' is based in the final count not on scientific or empirical grounds but on ideological premises. This will involve quite a leap for those today who assume his principle reigns supreme, whether it be physicists or ordinary people with little or no technical background. The arguments of the remainder of his chapter are at points quite technical. I refer those interested in the details to Smith's own text. What follows aims to give a flavour of the reasoning involved.
Einstein inaugurated his ''special'' theory of relativity in 1905. In view of its extraordinary and revolutionary impact, Smith summarises its main elements and seeks to discover why Einstein felt a need to develop this particular theory.
Here is a very short summary of the historical background to Einstein's 1905 theory.
Ptolemy (c100- c170) had argued that the earth was the centre of the universe. The Christian Church and the Bible affirmed this geocentrism although it was refined occasionally, notably by Tycho Brahe (1546-1601). Copernicus (1473-1543), however, rejected geocentrism and argued for its replacement by a heliocentric model. He was later followed by Galileo (1564-1642) and Newton (1642-1727) subsequently seemed to have provided cast-iron mathematical proofs of heliocentrism. By the nineteenth century, everyone though the science was ''settled'': the earth revolved on its own axis and orbited the sun. All that remained was for scientists to prove the movement of the earth by means of the scientific method: an experiment involving observation and measurement. Several experiments took place, notably the Michelson-Morley series (beginning in 1887). The results of these experiments astonished the world of physics because no movement could be measured. This remained so even after repetitions of the experiment.
It is important to emphasise that Einstein's starting point was to accept that the earth did indeed move. The classical equations of mechanics (going back to Newton's Principia of 1687) and of electromagnetism (formulated by Clerk Maxwell in 1865) did not allow this conclusion. Hence, Einstein ''discovered'' (formulated) his ''special'' theory of relativity. He was able to use this theory to explain away the Michelson-Morley experiment's ''failure'' to detect movement by the earth. The problem for Einstein was that his theory was incompatible with Newtonian mechanics. As Smith notes at this point:
Now this leaves him, obviously, with two options: to reject his so-called ''special theory of relativity'' on the grounds that it does not square with the equations of mechanics, or to alter these equations—to render them ''relativistic'' by fiat as it were—to save his theory. And needless to say, Einstein chose the second course: the Procrustean option, his critics might say.No-one among the avant-garde physicists at the time appears to have seriously entertained the possibility that the equations of classical mechanics may actually be correct. Whenever a disciple of Einstein postulates his Principle of Relativity, the question that needs to be asked is ''why?'' Why alter the Newtonian equations? Why suppose that they are in any way deficient? What experiment told us so? Later in the chapter, Smith hints at possible motivations by quoting Richard Lewontin: ''We cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.''[1]
Smith himself argues that classical physics implies the very opposite of Einstein's postulate since one finds that physics itself defines a state of absolute rest (please see the Chapter for his arguments in favour of what he terms the ''Principle of Immobility''). He cites in support of his position a paper entitled “Newton-Machian analysis of a Neotychonian model of planetary motions”[2]—in which a physicist named Luka Popov calculates planetary orbits by means of Newtonian physics, based on a geocentric reference frame. Luka Popov’s result has broken the long-standing hegemony of heliocentrism. It demonstrates, on the basis of Newtonian mechanics, that it is equally legitimate to claim that the Sun rotates (annually) around the Earth: it all depends on your choice of coordinates, and geocentric coordinates are in fact legitimate.
Smith goes further, writing:
The picture changes drastically, however, the moment one takes electromagnetism into account: for now the Principle of Immobility comes into play, which, as we have seen, singles out the Earth from all other celestial bodies by the fact that it can be both stationary and central. What confronts us here constitutes evidently the very pinnacle of design: no wonder ''relativists'' of every stripe abhor the notion like the plague! So far from being a planet, the Earth can thus be viewed as the very antithesis: as the stationary centre, namely, around which all other celestial bodies are constrained to revolve diurnally. And as to the authentic planets or “wanderers,” beginning with the Sun: these do then execute, in addition, their appointed orbits around the Earth, very much as the ancient astronomers had ascertained.In the final post on this roller-coaster Chapter 5, we shall take a brief look at the empirical arguments Smith cites against Einstein and conclude by unmasking a truly stunning ''anthropic coincidence.''
[1] Richard Charles "Dick" Lewontin (born March 29, 1929, New York City, to parents descended from Eastern European Jewish immigrants); an American evolutionary biologist, mathematician, geneticist, and social commentator. A leader in developing the mathematical basis of population genetics.
[2] Eur. J. Phys. 34, 2(2013): 383
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)