|Jim Schofield - Editor
Physicist, Philosopher, Marxist, Multimedia Expert, Mathematician, Author, Sculptor.
Dr. Peter Mothersole - Editor
Senior Lecturer in Computing, Physicist, Photographer, Constructivist, Software Developer, Philosopher.
Mick Schofield - Art Director
Graphic Designer, Writer, Photographer, Music Producer,
Digital Artist, Webmaster
SHAPE Special Issue 40
Entangled Universe (New Scientist 3046)
Form or Cause?
The Values of Abstraction
Counting, Measuring and Processing Phenomena A Muse on Formal Theory
The Inevitable Slide into Ideality
Lost in the Underworld of Delights
A Non-Ideality Context
The Real Explanatory Physics
Why a Black Hole?
Down the Plughole
Light and Black Holes
What Causes a Supernova?
Read PDF (Right click link to Download)
Original Article in New Scientist
Welcome to the 40th Special Issue of the SHAPE Journal entitled Entangled Universe: an extended review of an article in New Scientist (3046) of the same name, by Anil Anathaswamy.
The writer of the following extended review was presented with an almost impossible task. Let me explain what the difficulties were!
It’s as if we have researchers from two different planets, with completely incompatible ways of dealing with the identical natural relations pertaining in both their worlds. On one planet, the universally agreed method sought the purely formal relations for everything that occurs there. While in the other, they instead seek concrete substances, entities and their properties that determine physical causes concerning the very same phenomena. Clearly, the first group of researchers aim to reveal Formal Equations, which embody the Laws that drive the observed phenomena. While, the second group attempts to reveal the actual Physical Causes for those happenings. Such alternative approaches are certainly not trivial, as they amount to totally different philosophic stances by the two groups. Those aiming solely for presumed-to- be Driving Equations are clearly idealists. While those aiming for Causative factors are materialists.
Connections between the two groups for the purposes of explaining their findings, initially in this case of the idealists to the materialists, seemed incomprehensible to the recipients, and the latter’s responses were similarly meaningless to the delivering idealists.
Thus, this review (by a materialist scientist) has been undermined by the assumptions and indeed the full set of premises presented (or, more often, left unstated) by the idealists. What the original New Scientist article, which presents this account, does, is deliver the purely formal descriptions of a range of puzzling phenomena, while the reviewer naturally attempts to instead deliver Physical Explanations of the same phenomena.
Naturally allowing the article, with its contentious standpoint to dominate, as he must, has led to the initial Review. But, it was evident, throughout, that the attempted translations, between two totally incompatible languages would never suffice.
So, in addition, the reviewer has also produced a series of, hopefully, more coherent ancillary papers, to deliver as far as possible the alternative materialist view in a self- consistent way.