Vanity thought #1796. VC – Cosmology should be semantic

Link: “Mystic Universe: An Introduction to Vedic Cosmology”.

The end of section on problems with modern cosmology is within the grasp. There are only two rather short chapters left and they largely summarize what has been explained in detail earlier. There’s one little bombshell dropped here, however, so, without further ado, let’s see this grande finale.

Dark Matter anomaly arises when we our observations do not comply with our theory of gravitation. We expect distant stars and galaxies to rotate with certain speeds but they do it faster as if they were in the presence of a large gravitational field. We attribute this field to dark matter.

In our solar system we also expect planets to rotate around the Sun with different speeds – those closer to the Sun must rotate faster and those farther away much, much slower. Saturn, for example, completes one rotation in twenty six Earthly years. Wait a minute, the Saturn also covers a lot more distance in this time so I’m not sure whether it moves faster or slower relative to Earth. Anyway, in Vedic cosmology, the book says, the problem of dark matter does not arise because all planets and all start rotate with the same speed.

What about our observations of [allegedly] slow moving Saturn, however? What if it moves slower than Mercury, which is the closest to the Sun in our solar model. This is where the book drops a mysterious sentence that despite same rotational speed the apparent speeds are different because planets are being dragged by the Sun and by the zodiac. Dragged by the Sun? I’ve read this before, I’ve heard of this from Srimad Bhagavatam, too, and I’ve read detailed explanations further in the book, but I still can’t explain what it actually means. Maybe it will come to me later.

Stars are parts of the zodiac and in Vedic cosmology they move at a constant speed, too. We think that those of them that are further away should move faster to keep up but here they are considered as parts of the same “disk” rather than independent celestial objects with no connections to each other. This is promised to be explained in later chapters.

More to the point, because in Vedic cosmology gravity is rejected as a driving force behind movements of stars and planets then what follows is that distances to them are explained differently as well. There’s a great agreement between Vedic observations and modern astronomy when it comes to rotational movement but distances to planets are all wrong – as Śrīla Prabhupāda insisted that the Sun is closer to the Earth than the Moon, for example.

Methods of measuring distances used by modern astronomers have been enumerated in this section and in semantic theory all of them were rejected one by one as they rely on unsubstantiated principles. Light does not travel in straight lines as assumed in the parallax method. Light is not equally distributed in all directions as assumed in inverse square law of luminosity. All parts of the universe are not made of the same type of matter as assumed by calculations based on Doppler shift. Once we drop these three assumptions and incorporate principles of semantic theory (Sāṅkhya) we can construct an entirely new model of the universe that will be in full agreement with śāstra, though scientists might not necessarily see the benefits of that agreement.

The last chapter starts with the point that it’s not only that we don’t know how to reconcile quantum theory with thermodynamics or general relativity but we have no idea what these reconciliations would look like. I think quantum field theory already claims to explain thermodynamics but don’t quote me on that. Physics needs postulates of dark energy and matter on the assumption that “dark” stuff we can’t see is physically just like the stuff we can. The author says that all these problems rise not from theories themselves but from the inability to incorporate meanings into science in general. I see what he did there – we can’t see meanings and they do not act like what we can see – objects.

Sāṅkhya provides the alternative to science where meanings are incorporated from the get go and difficulties experienced by science do not arise there. At this point I must add that I can neither concur nor disagree with this statement – no one knows if Sāṅkhya can be fully understood without accepting some contradictions here and there. It’s a bold claim to make.

Sāṅkhya based approach, however, will fundamentally alter our understanding of time, universe, and space we all live in. For now we see time and space as linear and flat, and all objects as physical. In Sāṅkhya we must first understand the nature of concepts and space-time in which concepts exist. This new space-time will become hierarchical and closed. As far as I understand, “flat” means that in our universe everything is made of the same kind of matter and in Sāṅkhya this flatness will be changed into hierarchy. Our space is “open”, meaning our universe has no boundaries and space between stars if filled with an infinite number of points which can make up continues straight or curved lines, for example. Closed space means that there’s the universal tree and that’s it. It’s not a tree in space and there are no straight paths between its branches. Our trees exist in space and squirrels can jump from one branch to another but this is not the correct model of the Vedic tree – outside space must be excluded.

Time is also arranged hierarchically, which will be explained later. For now I’ll just say, not being entirely sure, that our time folds in the time of greater beings like days fold into a week, weeks fold into months and so on. Vedic time is also cyclic – days, months, years and yugas go full circle and return where they started (never mind that space changes from Monday to Monday or from spring to spring).

Due to hierarchical nature of objects we won’t be puzzled by dark matter because all “dark” means in Sāṅkhya is it’s the kind of matter more abstract than our senses. Hierarchical organization of matter also means that all different kinds of space-time might appear in our physical view just as country, state, city, and street are all present in the physical sense but they are not the same types of location. We understand the difference between a concept of “state” and “street” but science somehow doesn’t recognize this distinction of type when it tries to reduce all matter to atomic interactions. Science suffer from physicalist dogma here and once that dogma is removed a new picture of the cosmos will emerge in which many of currently held views will become irrelevant, or wrong, or both.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the end of the section on problems with modern cosmology. The next section is dedicated to principles of Vedic cosmology but it starts with discussing another set of problems in modern science so it’s not going to be all about Lord Brahmā and the lokas he made right from the start.

Vanity thought #1795. VC – Putting Vedas back into Cosmology again

Link: “Mystic Universe: An Introduction to Vedic Cosmology”.

We are near the end of the section on problems with modern science. I think most of them have been presented already, leaving only a discussion on dark energy and dark matter which be the subject of the next couple of chapters. So far we’ve covered things like speed of light, Doppler effects, parallax, luminosity, thermodynamics, general relativity and some aspects of quantum theory. I might be missing something but it’s a long list as it is. In every case the book highlights problems with each discipline and explains them through semantic theory where these problems do not arise. Semantic theory, in turn, needs an induction of several principles so far completely absent from modern science and in today’s chapter there’s an attempt to describe these principle in Vedic terms, then somehow the discussion shifts to dark matter and conversion flows gently into the next chapter where some outrageous things are stated, but all in good time.

Should dark matter and energy have gotten their own chapter instead of stealing the show in the middle of the Vedic explanation of things? Probably, but the reason they are brought here is that there’s a nice semantic explanation of what “dark” means which ties it up back Sāṅkhya. Should I follow chapter’s narrative or should I re-organize the ideas in some other way? Probably, but I’m not sure my alternative would be better. Reorganizing ideas is a good exercise which leads to deeper understanding so I’ll try for a change. There are two hooks into Sāṅkhya in this chapter and we can start with semantics first and then describe these hooks later.

First of all, in Sāṅkhya the universe is a space-time tree and objects in this tree represent not only mass, which is the view of general relativity and gravitational theory, but any kind of semantic information. Various forms of semantic information are related to each other as abstracts and contingents. The most contingent forms are sense objects and that’s all we can perceive directly. Sense objects are produced from sensations which, in turn, are produced from senses.

We all have senses, there should be no argument about that, so we can perceive colors and sounds, but the author makes an interesting twist here – can we see color itself? We can see red and we can see blue but those are properties of color, as in “red color” or “blue color”. We see red and blue but not “color”. Similarly, we can hear musical notes but can’t hear the tone itself. To make tone perceptible it must have added details to produce a contingent object, like C#. In the same vein we have vision but can’t see vision itself not can we hear hearing. Concepts such as color and tone are abstract and by adding details to them we can produces perceptible contingents, such as sense objects, and it works in the down-up direction as well.

In this way the universal tree can be traversed up to the root. From sense objects to sensations, from sensations to senses, from senses to mind, from mind to intelligence, and from intelligence to ego. Each step is more abstract than the next. When we go from the top down we get progressively contingent objects with more details added to previous abstracts.

In our everyday life we all have language terms to discuss those abstracts and our common sense understanding of reality is not that different from Sānkhya. Consider intentions, for example. We all have them but we can’t see them directly. To demonstrate one’s intention it has to be converted into perceptible actions with perceptible sense objects. That way intentions can be “proven”. Intentions are causes of our actions but they are not seen, only their effects are visible.

Problem for science here is that intentions are excluded and ignored, except for humanities maybe. In hard science causes are attributed to visible objects and their properties, e.g. mass causes gravitational pull. All other things like intentions, guṇa, karma, mind, intelligence etc are physically imperceptible and therefore, from science point of view, are “dark”.

That’s where there’s a hook between Sāṅkhya and science in this chapter – empirical observations of movements of stars and galaxies do not conform with predictions of gravitational theory and their causes are attributed to “dark matter” and “dark energy”. Dark matter pulls stars together and is responsible for celestial objects rotating slower than they should, as if planetary systems or galaxies had a large core of invisible mass. Dark energy works in the opposite direction and forces galaxies to speed away. We can see that, no one is denying it, but the causes of these effects remain hidden and called “dark”. It’s worth repeating that together this dark mass and dark energy account for 95% of the total matter in the universe.

If only they could accept existence of abstract objects instead of only physically perceptible ones everything would become so much easier.

The second hook into Sāṅkhya, actually the first in the chapter, is that all interactions in Vedic universe are governed by guṇa and karma. These two have no equivalents in modern science and they are also dark and imperceptible but in this chapter they are linked to quantum theory. Remember that chapter on slit experiment a while back? The conclusion there was that the number of slits affects the outcome and this is what guṇa is compared to here.

Guṇa is part of our existence which modifies incoming information and which determines how it is perceived. In my mind I keep comparing guṇa to goggle with which we filter our existence. In slit chapter it was compared to base counting system – decimal, binary etc, but this kind of notation doesn’t change transmitted number itself the way pink glasses affect our vision.

Karma is channels established in the transmission of light, or any kind of information. These channels were discussed when we talked about light not going in all directions but being transmitted straight to the destination. There was source S, destination D, and cause C. Karma is this cause which connects S and D and enables information transfer. Guṇa, for some reason is compared here to D, or the part of our body which receives the light. It could be a leg or mind or eyes, I figure, but it’s an unusual way to talk about guṇa that’s for sure. It will make sense in the section on astrology, I guess, where guṇa and karma are described as two distinct celestial systems. This will come up in the next chapter as well but only briefly.

That’s it, a rather long chapter is done in one post. I might have missed a couple of paragraphs but nothing important. next chapter is very short and there’s a chance of finishing the entire section this week.

Vanity thought #1794. VC – Getting off the gravi waves

Link: “Mystic Universe: An Introduction to Vedic Cosmology”.

Next up for assault and reinterpretation in semantic terms is discovery of gravitational waves, which was the major news as the author was writing the book. He clearly couldn’t restrain himself from making this late addition and this probably explains why this chapter gets somewhat fuzzy in the end.

Gravitational waves are not a new theory and their discovery doesn’t affect general relativity in any way but detecting them for the first time was nice. According to general relativity two black holes orbiting each other lose some of their energy in the form of gravitational waves and this amount increases as black holes come closer and closer. This was the first time when our instruments were sensitive enough to catch the wave generated by black holes in the last second of their lives before they collapsed into each other.

The discovery deserves a Noble Prize but the difficulty lies in crediting because people who first showed how it could be done have gotten their Nobels decades ago and the current effort can’t be attributed to any one individual or a group. What made the difference to waves being detected this time lies in increasing equipment sensitivity and that was a financial decision, not an even an engineering one.

Two long tunnels at the right angle to each other were used to shoot lasers and when space contracted due to gravitational waves these tunnels length changed and that caused a change in lasers phases, which was detected from a change in their interference as their waves blended. In short, gravitational waves make space bigger or smaller, and that’s what the book aims to explain from a semantic perspective.

If there’s transfer of information between two nodes of a semantic tree than the node that emitted the information would become “smaller” and the node that received the information would become “bigger”. Not the nodes themselves, I figure, but whatever is branching out of them. More information means more branches, less information means less branches with less details. Information transfer, therefore, would cause expansion and contraction of “space” where by space we must mean “everything that exists from that node down”. This is true for ANY information exchange, not just for gravitational waves.

Then there’s a floating half paragraph about detecting these contractions and expansions on the macroscopic level. I say “floating” because it is not anchored anywhere. What is the threshold for detecting macroscopic addition of information, for example? What would “information” mean in case of space expansion in general relativity? What is it that we are supposed to detect? Instead the book simply says that this information transfer need not be caused by two rotating black holes but it could be created by either a massive transfer of detailed information or a transfer of an abstract from which all these detailed information is produced.

How does that follow? There’s no connection whatsoever. In this case it would be nice to explain how amount of information translates into the size of space. It’s not obvious at all, though as I think about it I can see how what we call “space” can be expressed in terms of information describing it, pretty much like digitized images. I’m still not sure whether space expansion would affect its digital representation or not, or what space expansion actually means. As I understand it’s not about fitting more stuff in it but rather the time it takes light to travel through. Maybe one day I’ll stumble upon a clear explanation of this but today let’s move on with book.

So, it could have been a massive transfer of details or a smaller transfer of abstracts. One deep enough abstract can cause massive changes because it will affect all the contingent details so it’s not the size of the transferred symbol itself that affects the resulting change in size but it’s the type of this symbol. This is clear enough but has nothing to do with detection of gravitational waves, just a general principle.

In gravitational theory there’s an assumption of space made up of physical points and expansion and contraction are changes in the metrics of that space. In semantic theory space doesn’t exist a priori but is constructed from information for each particular point and “physical distance” between points is pointless itself because creation of two points doesn’t mean all points in between have been created as well. I mean we can create this point and that point but they won’t be connected to each other, as gravitational theory assumes.

The unlimited number of points making up straight lines is impossible even from quantum theory point of view and so any theory that supposes this will be inconsistent with quantum physics, which is another reason why general relativity can’t be reconciled with quantum theory and why we can’t create a unified theory of everything.

In the last paragraph the author drives the main point home, which is that in semantic theory there’s no contraction or expansion of space but there are differences in distance between two objects which we can measure semantically and translate into “physical distance”. How exactly it happens is not explained but let me try again.

What we call physical distance is, in fact, a difference between semantic description of two objects. I suppose the location property would be the main difference here but there could be other differences as well. To fill that informational gap a certain amount of information needs to be exchanged and the amount of that information could be expressed as “physical distance”.

What complicates this is that amount of transferred information doesn’t matter as much as its type so that some cosmetic changes to details might require a bigger transfer of detailed symbols while one abstract symbol would change the entire system at once.

At the end of the day another achievement of modern science has been explained in a semantic way, which we should not forget is the good old Sāṅkhya expressed in modern language, and that this approach does away with conflicts between relativity and quantum theory but it needs an induction of a new theory of abstract vs contingent “atoms”. Once we have those we can explain pretty much anything science throws at us.

We, of course, already have this new theory, it’s part of Sāṅkhya, but we need it to be accepted by scientists before they can unify their irreconcilable theories of atomic, macroscopic, and cosmic size objects.

Vanity thought #1793. VC – Dark Times for Cosmic Microwave

Link: “Mystic Universe: An Introduction to Vedic Cosmology”.

Resuming from the next chapter, which is dedicated to cosmic microwaves. If we go with Big Bang Theory then all matter was initially in a highly condensed state and the universe was very very small. It’s hard to visualize this because a second into the life of the universe it was the size of a golf ball but at the same time there was no space outside this ball. We can’t imagine the whole of space being inside a golf ball because such definition of size is meaningless without relation to other known objects, such as the size of a golf club or tennis ball or a ping pong ball. In standard model of cosmology the universe is infinite in size so how could this infinite space be all packed inside a golf ball?

If we were present then, would it mean that all other things we compare golf balls to were still relatively the same size as our golf balls compared to the current universe? What difference would it make from the “insider” perspective then? We can say that our universe is a size of a golf ball to someone who is outside of it now. Besides, how could the space become infinite if it was very finite in the beginning and only a finite amount of time has passed?

Talking about size in this way makes no sense. There’s “observable universe”, however, which ties the size of it to the speed of light – how far it can go in 13 billion years could be considered as size of the observable universe. Then we have to consider that during this time the universe has been expanding so we add that and come to a current estimate for the diameter of the observable universe to be 93 billion light years (as light goes in the opposite direction as well).

Does it stretch any further but we are unable to see it? Possibly, that’s why we talked about “observable universe” here. Now, to the book.

As universe was rapidly expanding after the Big Bang scientists estimated the effect on light emitted at that time and predicted that it must come to us with a significant red shift and, because the matter that emitted it back then does not exist anymore, this radiation must not have any other attributable source. This has been experimentally confirmed as Cosmic Microwave Background, CMB, and so now we have “proof” of the Big Bang.

The author points out to current need to postulate dark matter and dark energy as throwing a wrench into this theory. What if this cosmic background radiation is not a vestige of Big Bang but is emitted by currently existing dark matter? It would mean we need another theory instead of Big Bang and in that theory the need for dark matter and energy might not even exist so in the end we are left with doing what we are already doing because alternatives are scary and unthinkable.

The book then takes us a chapter back and reminds that in semantic theory wave frequency can be correlated to the level of abstraction of the information – higher frequency means more energy is transmitted by a hotter object and lower frequency means the object is cooler, and from thermodynamics comparison discussed earlier it would mean that lower frequency is more abstract while higher frequency is more detailed. What science calls a redshift, therefore, means that the object has shared all its contingent information and only abstract information is left.

Next step is understanding that objects carrying abstract information must be below the threshold of our senses – like we can’t directly perceive our minds or egos. When science can’t attribute CMB to any known object it simply means this object is more abstract than what we can sense, or is “subtle” in the language of Krishna consciousness.

CMB itself is an effect of an imperceptible cause and, because it’s relatively abstract, it affects more abstract “atoms”, too, and not the “details”. These abstract “atoms” are what our detailed bodies are built from and so to us it would appear that effect of CMB is felt “everywhere” rather than in any specific part because perceptible parts of our bodies are built of “detailed” atoms contingent on more abstract “atoms”.

When we receive this abstract information and only our abstract “atoms” are affected by it then all contingent details change at once, too, and that means we can’t pinpoint the direction from which this radiation comes from – just as we can’t with CMB. As I understand it, direction can be deducted from two changes happening one after another in distinct locations but when the entire contingent body is affected at once this becomes impossible, so we say that CMB comes from “everywhere”. This all will start fitting together very soon.

The author then makes a detour into quantum mechanics and says that instruments measuring CMB must be treated as quantum systems and not typical physical objects. I can’t follow that but the point is that without quantum measuring systems we only catch the quantity of information but not its type, which is compared to examining a book without knowing language and having no clue why squiggles of funny shapes appear seemingly randomly in it. I don’t want to delve deep into this here as it was all making sense before and will continue making sense after this one paragraph.

The principle under consideration is that when the system receives abstract information the state of all contingent details is changed at once. This means that energy transmitted with low frequency will be absorbed and assimilated faster by the whole system while higher frequency energy will affect big changes in only selected detailed parts. Apparently thermodynamics confirms this, too.

It’s not immediately obvious to me but the author claims that there’s not only a different semantic explanation for common observable data here but a new kind of predictions, too. It would be nice if it was explained what kind of predictions and in what areas he envisioned here but he skips to the next part, which refers to Doppler effect from a few chapters back.

Doppler effect, if you remember, also produces a redshift and in light of today’s semantic explanation it would mean that we receive a more abstract information. This has an effect on our understanding of sources of light when we think it’s emitted by hydrogen or helium atoms found on this planet – because these atoms are detailed constructions we built from our observations and not more abstract “atoms” which produce the observations. Meaning that instead of looking for a more abstract source to observations we create a contingent. Hydrogen atoms we think up here can’t that more abstract source. There’s no sound reason, therefore, to extend our interpretations to the rest of the universe and we should rather accept that redshifts are produced by a different kind of sources then the ones we have on Earth.

Now that we have both CMB and Doppler effects explained semantically there’s no reason to accept Big Bang theory anymore. The universe is not expanding but static and is made of objects of a different, more abstract type then the ones we have on our planet.

Let me see if I got this right – we believe in Big Bang and expansion because we observe redshifts in radiation but semantically it means that it is transmitted by more abstract types of matter than we experience here, like cosmic mind and cosmic intelligence. Makes sense, but lacks detail, but not to worry, there will be plenty of chapters discussing “subtle” influences on our world later on.

Vanity thought #1792. VC – from thermos to quantos

Link: “Mystic Universe: An Introduction to Vedic Cosmology”.

Continuing where I left off. The chapter is about unifying theories of nature but so far it’s been mostly about thermodynamics. Yesterday I said that the author has a clear preference of quantum theory and this seems to be the way science goes, too, but today the flow is reverse – the book inducts insights from thermodynamics into quantum mechanics and does it via “semantic theory of information” – my words, google returns not quite what I have in mind. It would be nice if the book had a catchy name for this theory that solves everything but it isn’t there. Or rather it’s just another presentation of Sāṅkhya done in a contemporary language, which is a good thing because Sāṅkhya is authoritative.

Last time we left on brief description of weirdness of thermodynamic exchanges. They are not weird to us as observers and users of thermodynamics for our entire lives but they are weird for science because energy transfer goes only one way – from hot to cold – and never the other, and because energy can never be transferred in full. Incidentally, there’s a homeless woman whose baby froze to death as she was holding it in Portland a few days ago. The meme created out of this story uses a photo of a homeless man from a couple of years ago so it’s a fake. The point was that we deal with transferring heat all the time, just don’t think about it much.

Now I can’t use the word “body” when talking about thermodynamics but I don’t see any other choice. So, particles comprising a body might look alike from a science point of view but they might also carry different levels of information. These levels build up as they go from abstract to contingent and so if contingent information is present then it must include its abstract, and if we remove the abstract then the contingent layer would collapse, too.

Comparatively speaking, the hot body has both abstract and contingent levels of detail but a cold body has only abstract. When they come in contact only the contingent information is transferred from the hot body to the cold until both come to the same level of abstraction. At these point both objects have the same information and no further exchanges are possible or even necessary.

In classical physics information can be sent out regardless of whether it’s needed or not – like a light bulb which shines in all directions even when you leave the room. In semantic theory this is not possible and information transfer happens only when some of it is missing AND required. We require only stuff that we don’t have – we can’t require something we already possess, but we don’t require all of what is missing. So information must be missing first and then required as the next logical step. Then information transfer could occur. In case of two bodies in thermodynamics when they reach the same temperature there’s no missing information in either of the systems so transfer stops because of the first rule – information mush be missing.

This is where the books shifts to quantum theory and plugs it with what is missing there. Two quantum systems must be connected, or entangled in QT speak, one of them must have more information than the other, and the other must need that information so that it becomes missing and required. Only when these conditions are satisfied energy/information transfer will take place.

Current quantum theory doesn’t get that. It can’t predict neither when the particles will be emitted nor where exactly they would go. The question of where does not really arise because QT assumes that a particle/wave would fly out and will be absorbed by whatever happens to be in its path. Thermodynamics tells us that it’s all wrong – first two systems must come in contact and once that happens the when, where, and what will be exchanged will become fixed as well and we’ll know everything.

Apparent randomness and unpredictability of quantum behavior is, therefore, caused by us not knowing how two systems become entangled. I don’t think this is accepted as an obvious reason in current quantum theory but the author’s long term goal here is to propose a solution to this problem of random entanglement, which lies in semantic interpretation of karma.

Abbreviating all this we get source S, destination D, and cause C. Unless C brings S and D together they have potential for exchange but it doesn’t happen – probably because without C they are not designated as actual S and D yet, they are just “things”. In thermodynamics C is a choice to put hot and cold bodies together. In quantum theory objects don’t have to be physically close and C has to create a channel between S and D through which information can transfer. Once the channel is established information is transferred immediately. The role of causality in nature, therefore, is establishing and breaking up these channels. The author says that these channels are like roads on which information travels and that they might exist without being attached to any particular pair of source and destination. This last part is a bit unclear but okay, no biggie.

Bringing relativity into a fold, as the chapter intended, the implications of this model for cosmology are huge – light from the stars doesn’t shine in all directions equally and it hasn’t been travelling to us for billions of years. Rather it’s transmitted instantaneously as soon as a channel between the star (S) and us (D) is established. Stars don’t spam the universe with their light but rather send it to those for whom it was intended and assigned by the cause C.

Time involved in this process is spend on absorbing the light, not on its travel. It takes time for us to process the received information and come to a state when it becomes part of our system, but it’s not longer than our lifetime. To us this absorbed information manifests as life experiences. When we finally “see” the light we think it happened just now but, in fact, light has been received earlier and we were just processing it. It’s like the “aha” moment when reading a book – it takes time to process the words and realize it’s important.

The last paragraph sums it all up. As promised, there’s a unification of three fundamental theories of nature but no one theory gets to be a winner. Information transfer must happen when there’s a channel between the source and the destination. and it’s established by a third party and it’s this third agency that is missing from all branches of modern science. There’s also an interesting addition that it’s not our entire body that must receive the information but only the part which is connected to a channel. The same information, therefore, can create different experiences in us depending on how exactly the channels are created what they are connected to. To figure it all out science needs a theory of channel establishment. We have one in Sāṅkhya but it’s not the time to bring it up yet.

Vanity thought #1791. VC – No Unity In Diversity

Link: “Mystic Universe: An Introduction to Vedic Cosmology”.

Before moving on to the next chapter I want to say a few words about this book and potential “problems” with it. As a rule, it has no supporting quotes for its assertions about Sāṅkhya or Śrīmad Bhāgavatam whatsoever. How can we be sure that this is really what Sāṅkhya says? If we check the content of Śāṅkhya related chapters in the Third Canto we might not even recognize what is presented here. The answer is that it’s not so much the quotes that we need but thorough understanding of principles – principles on which we can already easily agree.

We all know that we change bodies, for example, but how many of us pursue this principle logically to realize that our bodies do not move through space from one end of the room to another, that this motion is only an illusion, and so our models of space which are built on it are an illusion, and that out entire grade school curriculum on geometry or physics is just one big lie. That’s why Śrīla Prabhupāda dismissed Moon travel a full decade before it happened, before coming to America. In Vedic science travel means changing of bodies, you change into a moon body and you are on the Moon. You don’t change into a moon body and you aren’t. Very simple.

How many quotes do we need to realize that? None, we already know everything we need to know, we just don’t think deep enough about it.

Another example – all empirically perceptive sense objects are created to match living beings desires for sensations – they do not exist independently or objectively. None of them. One might object that he remembers nothing like that from chapters on Sāṅkhya but one need not to search that far – Prabhupāda’s Introduction to Bhagavad Gītā is enough:

    When we see wonderful things happening in the cosmic nature, we should know that behind this cosmic manifestation there is a controller. Nothing could be manifested without being controlled. It is childish not to consider the controller. For instance, a child may think that an automobile is quite wonderful to be able to run without a horse or other animal pulling it, but a sane man knows the nature of the automobile’s engineering arrangement.

It’s a simple principle that underwrites the entire creation. Nothing could be manifested without being controlled. Nothing appears on its own. So what if Prabhupāda only mentions Kṛṣṇa as the ultimate controller without describing controllers in between, like Lord Brahmā? This is a simple principle that we all sort of know but don’t really understand so we think that planets, stars, rocks, minerals, oceans etc are “dead” matter and we accept scientific explanations for them that don’t require neither God nor any kind of consciousness to produce. Maybe in their bubble they don’t but all it means is that they don’t know the whole truth about this process, which means they are in illusion and have only slight connection to reality. So are we, but at least we have proper sources of knowledge which we can utilize if we want to understand true nature of things or at least understand how and where science goes off track.

Back to the book. There are three major theories in science – quantum theory for small stuff, thermodynamics for our size stuff, and relativity for universe size stuff. Each of them emerged from classical physics which were linear and deterministic. Quantum mechanics is still linear but non-deterministic, relativity is deterministic but non-linear, and thermodynamics has become neither linear nor deterministic. Interesting classification but if you don’t immediately recall what the difference between linear and non-linear is it kind of loses its effect. I’d volunteer to say that in linear systems output is directly proportional to input but if you want to figure out if that is a sufficient definition and all the implications of major theories branching out this particular way you are on your own.

The point is that there’s no one theory that could describe all phenomena. The author here demonstrates a slant towards quantum theory to be the one science that rules them all. In the previous chapters we’ve seen how interpreting light from stars in the quantum way leads to discarding corner stones of relativity such as constant speed of light and judging distances to the stars by their luminosity. Today it’s thermodynamics way to be defeated by the mighty quanta.

As far as I know, this has already been done and there’s a tentative way to express thermodynamics through the theory of quantum fields but this should be interesting anyway.

First there’s a description of principal differences between classical physics and thermodynamics. In classical physics when two objects collide it’s possible that one of them transfers all its energy to the other, like one billiard ball could hit another and stop itself. This never happens in thermodynamics. If you bring two bodies together, one hot one cold, the hot one will never ever transfer all of its energy to the cold one. They’d rather reach the state of equilibrium where they both become warm. In classical physics two object hit each other with an equal force. The smaller one feels a greater effect than the big one but there’s an effect on both. In thermodynamics cold body doesn’t transfer any energy to the hotter one, it all goes one way – from hot to cold.

The book explains this one sided and never complete energy transfer in the language of Sāṅkhya as it has been formulated in the earlier section of the book – there are abstract objects and adding information to them creates contingent objects with greater level of detail. Are there any quotes for that? Not that I know of but it’s restating familiar Sāṅkhya’s processes about three guṇas producing one element out of the other in a different language, that’s all.

Matter is thus constructed from layers of information. There are layers of abstract information to which details are added to create the next layer. Some particles, which we think bodies are made of, might look the same but if they carry different levels of information they belong to different layers – some to abstract and some to contingent. Since contingent information is produced from abstract then existence of a contingent symbol means there should exist an abstract symbol already. And if you remove the abstract then contingent will collapse, too.

Next comes the actual explanation of heat transfer but I’m afraid it’s too long to start it now. Another day.

Vanity thought #1788. VC – Wave Good Bye

Link: “Mystic Universe: An Introduction to Vedic Cosmology”.

Next chapter in the book is called “Remnants of Wave Theory”, but before I move on I have another idea related to yesterday’s post and I want to put it down to paper while it’s still fresh. The discussion was about instant rather than constant speed of light and the illusion of one body moving through space rather than the soul taking succession of new bodies. The illusion of movement gave rise to the illusion of space, and I mean our 3D, physical space, and then building entire modern science on this illusory perception.

But “science works, b*tches!” – in immortal words of Richard Dawkins. Okay, but it works in the same way Fun Fiction works, too. Fan Fiction is literature produced by fans of comic books or movies. Fans love their characters and stories and the world their fictional heroes live and they can’t get enough of it so they don’t wait for official releases of new comics or movie sequels but rather create their own stories filling the gaps or taking characters on new adventures. These new stories go through a peer review process and if they pass, that is they don’t break the rules of the original “universe” and don’t deviate from character roles, they are declared “canonical”. They become a part of the “canon” even if they are not included into the officially released narrative.

The original stories that fans come to love are real, they satisfy fans desires, and Fan Fiction satisfies their desires just the same. Some of it is not up to scratch but some of it really works, so good Fan Fiction is as real as the original. The only difference is that with fiction we know that it’s just a story from the start but with science we don’t, though children believing in Santa Claus are an example that not all story telling is taken as an illusion. There was just nobody around to tell Ancient Greeks that their idea of space was illusory and if there were these people were not taken seriously. And now, two thousand years on, we continue to treat this scientific fan fiction as real, but so do people who go to Comic-Con dressed up as Star Wars characters.

Our science based civilization is pretty old but it’s by no means the only civilization built on distinct worldviews. In fact, science started to matter to people only in a last couple of hundred years because before that they relied on their faith in Christ as the reason for their prosperity. Over in Asia there were huge empires that lasted for hundreds of years and they relied on their faith in different Gods, from Allah to Viṣṇu to Śiva to Kali to Buddha. They didn’t know our science and they were very prosperous and they naturally thought that it was because they figured out how the world works and how to get God’s favors.

Now we think they were stupid and we are the ones who know the real secret, and we call it science. We also think that scientific progress will be linear and defy the rule that everything that comes up must come down and all empires eventually crumble. Sure, those other empires crumbled – because they didn’t know the secret but we do and so we are immune. Well, western civilization is already crumbling. Science needs freedom and democracy to prosper, we’ve been told, but democracy had lost its shine in many parts of the world already and as the world looks at the rise of Trump or Brexit it really starts to think that Chinese or Putin models are superior. Russians just negotiated a peace deal in Syria without inviting Americans, and China, Russia, and Pakistan recently had a negotiation over Afghanistan to curb influence of India there and no one missed Americans at that meeting either. Some say that the world as we know it already over, we just don’t realize it yet.

So, modern science is like Fan Fiction – started from an illusion, created more of it, and it works for the purpose. It doesn’t work for self-realization nor for approaching God just like we don’t expect Star Wars to be useful for our jobs.

Back to the book. This is a section on problems in modern science but the chapter starts without accusing science of anything in particular. Before quantum theory people thought light was a wave, like a wave generated by a stone dropped in a pond, and as a wave it propagated in all directions equally. With quantum theory it was confirmed that this model of propagation is incorrect and photons do not arrive at all equidistant locations simultaneously. Okay, sounds believable, but the next sentence needs more information, I think.

The author says that there’s an order in the arrival of photons which quantum theory cannot predict. Maybe so but I have never heard of this problem before and I don’t know how to google it either. Then the book seamlessly switches to a description of a slit experiment. Ah, I know about those, I think, but slit experiments usually demonstrate that light, ie photons, can behave both like waves and like particles. This aspect is completely ignored in the book and something else steals all the focus instead. When light passes through slits, as a wave, I might add, it creates a pattern of interference – one wave breaks into many – and when these new mini-waves reach the screen they leave a pattern of lighter and darker bands, as I would expect many converging waves would. It’s not the kind of slit experiment I was expecting but okay, let’s move on because this is where it gets interesting.

Bright and dark bands show luminosity of light in that location. The number of slits corresponds to measurement procedure and the pattern of bands corresponds to outcome of that procedure, and the point is that if we change the number of slits we change the pattern of bands, too, even though the original light stays the same. The real point is that the outcome of observation depends on the method of observation, not only on the observed object itself.

The author says that there’s much debate whether we should consider slits as part of the measuring instrument, like he does here, or part of the measured system. He then gives a link to another book on the subject where he discusses it at length and I’m not going to follow that link for now, I have enough books on my plate as it is.

The rest of the chapter discusses implications of this crucial point – what we see is not what IS but depends on HOW we look at it, too, and this time it’s demonstrated scientifically, not just from observation of human interactions. Unfortunately, it has to be continued on another day.

Vanity thought #1787. VC – fast as lightning

Link: “Mystic Universe: An Introduction to Vedic Cosmology”.

The next chapter in the book deals with the speed of light. It’s one of the most daring challenges the author throws to science. It sounds convincing but it also calls for accompanying math in support of it. I don’t know anyone who has time and the ability to provide “proofs”.

“Proofs” were central to the story of Ramanujan, a brilliant Indian mathematician who became a Fellow of Royal Society of London. His mathematical theories were revolutionary, they worked in practice, but Ramanujan was seen as too lazy to provide “proofs” and when he did they weren’t very impressive. The thing was that theories were manifested to him by his worshipable deity while “proofs” he had to supply on his own, hence a mismatch in quality.

Anyway, the chapter starts with a brief history of the problem. When Newton postulated his law of gravity it was thought that it works on distant objects instantaneously but later experiments proved that it was not the case. The cause of gravity manifested its effect with a delay. The solution was that the cause travels as some sort of a particle and so it takes time for it to reach its destination and create the effect. In modern science these traveling particles are called bosons – photons and such.

Then came the discovery of the constant speed of light which doesn’t depend on whether the observer travels towards the cause or not. This is a little bit of a gray area. I myself got very interested in this about ten years ago and pondered all sorts of paradoxes derived from this – how things become shorter or longer, how time runs faster or slower, how twins age differently and many more. I thought I got it but there was always some new twist that made no sense to me no matter how much I knew about this already. In the end I just gave up and now, ten years later, I can’t force myself to relive through that nightmare again.

With this experience being a chip on my shoulder I’m hesitant to endorse book’s presentation of this problem. I’m pretty sure if it was shown to actual physicists someone would find something to object, casting the accusation that the author doesn’t know special relativity and physics in general. I’m not going to get in between because, in my experience, both parties would accuse me of being stupid just to relieve themselves. When someone doesn’t want to answer his accusers directly I’m not going to be a messenger either. It would make me into everybody’s enemy.

In any case, the way the book states the problem is novel. In quantum theory photons do not travel through space in a traditional sense but rather hop from one fixed position to another with no stages in between. I want to drift away here for a bit because this is important.

Being conditioned souls we are unaware that we are accepting new bodies every moment of our lives. We agree that our bodies change from youth to adulthood to old age and as devotees we accept that after death of one body we will take another, and we theoretically accept that we take a new body every second, too, but we do not realize this practically.

When I pace up and down the room, chanting my rounds, I believe that it’s the same body that does the walking and travels through space. Everybody does. Based on this illusion we form our idea of three dimensional space where our bodies and all other objects can move around. Each point in this space can be connected to any other point by a straight line and, while traveling along this line, objects pass through the infinite number of locations, infinite number of points on the line.

From segments of such lines we can make triangles and squares and then we can create coordinate systems and move these shapes freely around, transform them, rotate them, skew them and so on. We still think that it’s the same object that we can manipulate in any way we want and this forms the basis of all our science – objects have properties and these properties can change their values. In geometry the properties could be locations and sizes, in Newtonian physics we can add momentum and speed, in electrodynamics we can change objects’ charge, and in relativity we can change objects mass, too.

This is all plain wrong from the perspective of Vedic science. It’s not the same body that moves through space, it’s a succession of new bodies, each slightly different and each with its own set of sensations. We watch these bodies like we watch a movie, which is also a succession of still images, and then we mistakenly interpret it as movement and from this interpretation we create a model of space. This space is illusory, there’s a new body with a new set of sensory values, there’s not traveling, no distance between things – it’s all in our minds.

There’s also a science of changing these bodies and the role our consciousness, time, and karma plays in all this but it’s not a subject for today.

So, quantum theory finally got this part right – there’s no smooth movement, photons hop from one position to another and there’s a fixed number of hops between the source and the observer. If the observer starts hopping towards the photon there will be less hops to be made before they meet, and how does the photon know the observer is approaching? Why would it slow down? How can the number of hops become smaller? What’s going on here? The book states that this is a problem that science doesn’t acknowledge yet. Maybe it is, but what comes next is the most interesting proposition here.

The light does not take any time to travel at all. Information is passed through space (which is an illusory concept, as explained above) instantaneously but what takes time is for the recipient to absorb this information and change his state, or rather his body, to a new one where this information appears as already absorbed.

This solution is simple and elegant and I think it’s brilliant. The rest of the chapter gives examples how this principle already works in everyday life. A teacher’s lesson, for example, is absorbed at different speed by different students depending on their background knowledge and the speed with which words reach their ears, ie speed of light, is irrelevant. What matters is how long it would take for a student to change from his current body to a body where the lesson has been learned, and this works across the whole universe.

There’s no point in measuring distance to stars and planets anymore, it doesn’t exist because light does not take any time to travel at all, and so our 3D model of space becomes redundant. What effect this explanation would have on modern science? Which formulas need to be adjusted? Is it even possible? I don’t think anyone knows the answer to these questions or has the ability and time to figure out the answers. It takes time for us to change from a state where these answers are unknown to a state where they trivial, and that state might not be in our karma at all.

Vanity thought #1786. VC – Dope Doppler

Link: “Mystic Universe: An Introduction to Vedic Cosmology”.

It’s time to resume digesting this book, last post was from the end of October, two and a half months ago. At first I thought that it would be easy but now I realize that a decent post on that book might take twice the time – first to understand what it is talking about and then process it internally to form a presentable opinion. Some chapters are too esoteric but the one I have to resume from poses complicated science questions.

It’s about using Doppler effect to determine distance to stars and galaxies and measure the rate of the expansion of the universe. It comes after a chapter on using star luminosity to estimate distances and uses largely the same argument – it’s all relative, science makes assumptions first and then compares other data to the assumed standard to fill out the rest. If the luminosity of their “standard candle” star is wrong then all measurements comparing other stars to it should go into the bin, too. With Doppler effect it’s a bit more complicated but no less compelling in the end. To get to the end of the chapter, however, is hard.

I remember reading it for the first time and it made total sense, I moved on without any questions. On rereading, however, I realized that either the author is wrong or I’m totally confused about Doppler. Internet isn’t very helpful either.

Everybody learns about Dopper effect in school. The author uses the example of an ambulance but it’s best observed with trains, in my experience – because they are so much faster than ambulances moving through city traffic and because they emit sound of a constant tone unlike “wee-woo” of police and emergency vehicles. The best case is when the train blows its horn but it’s already loud enough to hear the increase in pitch as the train approaches and decrease when it goes away.

The book explains it in terms of moving objects velocity which affects the speed of sound but now I’m not so sure about that. When the book jumps to using Doppler effect to distances between us and stars it says that speed of light is constant therefore it’s not affected by the speed of stars and Doppler effect shows expansion of space instead. Say what?

What does “space expansion” mean? Do miles get longer or are there more miles between objects? If miles get longer then so should be kilometers, feet and everything else. How would it look any different?

Doppler effect with sound doesn’t affect speed of sound either, it’s still 300 m/s in air just like light is always 300 km/s in vacuum. Yes, sound can propagate faster or slower but that’s not what happens with Doppler.

Doppler effect doesn’t tell us the speed of light or sound either, it shows that distance between two crests of a wave increases or decreases – that’s what change in pitch or red or blue spectrum shifts are. With sound and objects moving close to its speed it takes significantly longer for sound to travel to our ears if the object moves away but with light the difference is negligible because our speeds are incomparably slower. Still, police uses Doppler radars to measure speeds of cars because it’s not the speed of radio waves that is affected but the difference between crests of the same wave. Radio is a radio but long waves are longer than 1 km – too long to catch speeding cars. Police radars use much shorter waves, less than 10 cm.

In light of the above the book’s objection seems invalid but that is only a first impression. I have to admit I don’t understand much of it at all. I’ve also learned that the formula for calculating Doppler shift in astronomy is different because it has to account for constant speed of light. The book is probably right and I’m wrong.

Never mind this little confusion, it’s the rest of the chapter that is rock solid and should be remembered.

When applying this method scientists assume that stars don’t transmit Doppler shift themselves and attribute it to expansion of the universe. They have a theory to explain this expansion, ie Big Bang, but we might just as well ask for a theory where stars would transmit Doppler shift and no expansion would be necessary.

Historically, the theory of expansion was sounded first, the observation was then interpreted on the basis of this theory, and then they declared that this interpretation confirmed it.

However, in science data always underdetermines a theory, that is data can be interpreted in several valid ways, and therefore it’s impossible to determine which theory is correct on the basis of data itself. If there was a theory explaining Doppler shifted transmission from stars themselves it would have explained all the data just as well. We don’t have that theory and don’t even try for it because we believe that stars and laws which govern their transmissions are uniform everywhere in the universe. We assume that stars behave just like objects in our lab experiments and their red light, for example, is caused by the same chemical reactions as red light produced in our labs.

Without the assumption of uniform universe all our theories about stars and distances between us would be useless. We can’t even contemplate the world where this assumption doesn’t hold. Obviously, it does not hold in Sāṅkhya but scientists got problems even without us telling them so.

The principle of underdetermination means that scientists have to pursue all plausible and internally consistent theories at the same time until they find data that doesn’t fit and eliminate those theories one after another. This doesn’t happen in real life, alternatives are rarely pursued with the same vigor and when new data comes in which doesn’t conform to a theory nothing gets eliminated but the theory gets patched instead to account for anomalies.

Patched here means adding new assumptions, quite arbitrarily, simply because they would explain it better. In case of Doppler shifts new data shows not just expansion but accelerated expansion and accelerated expansion is impossible according to general relativity. What was the patch? Introduction of “dark energy”? How big is the input of this dark energy to expansion? 68% – over two thirds, but it keeps general relativity correct. I mean as long as you are content with the fact that some new and undeveloped theory accounts for two thirds of the time when general relativity is wrong. How new is this theory? Well, they gave Nobel Prize for discovery of acceleration only in 2011, basically five years ago. There’s no theory as such yet.

Are they going to admit that general relativity does not comply with experimental data and therefore should be abandoned? Nope, they are not even going to modify any time soon.

Science knows everything, right?

Vanity thought #1773. VC – dark times of science

Link: “Mystic Universe: An Introduction to Vedic Cosmology”.

This entire section is going through various problems in science and the author is just getting started. So far we’ve covered the basics of the Big Bang and now got to the current and future states of the universe. Big Bang was an “explosion” where massive amount of energy overcame gravitation of highly condensed matter and sent it flowing into space. There are four possible ways the balance between this energy and gravitation can go. Gravitation might overcome and force the universe to collapse again, or the energy can speed up the runaway movement of stars and galaxies, or they might reach some sort of equilibrium and the universe would stay flat, or it might continue expansion at a steady rate.

In the 20th century we built radio telescopes and were able to measure radiation from stars on all frequencies, not just visible light, like normal telescopes do. If the stars were approaching or flying away it would affect the frequency of their light and soon enough “red shift” was discovered, meaning the universe was expanding. That settled the debate but then in the late 90s new data came in and it appeared that it’s expanding at a faster rate than that dictated by the known amount of energy. Scientists couldn’t attribute this energy to any sources and so they called it “dark energy”. The amount of it is not trivial either – by modern calculations it accounts for over two thirds of all energy in the universe.

This “dark energy” comes on top of much older “dark matter” phenomenon that has been discovered almost a hundred years ago. Typically, stars further away from galaxy center would rotate slower than stars in the middle. We know it from how planets rotate around Sun in the solar system. Turns out that this is not what happens in real life of stars and the only reason for this science has, a hundred years on, is existence of some “dark matter” which we can’t see. It doesn’t emit any radiation and does not respond to any force other than gravity. Dark matter makes up almost a third of the known stuff.

In modern theories matter and energy are interchangeable, that is one can be converted into other and vice versa, so in the end it means that non-dark matter and energy, the observable universe, comprises less than 5% of everything that is out there. And it’s not that this stuff is too far for us to see but that we can’t observe it in principle, we only observe effects of its presence.

This covers two chapters in the book and I didn’t go through it in detail because that would require corroboration with other sources and unnecessarily expand the volume of the post.

Next the book goes into problems with measuring distances in the universe. There’s actually a “ladder” of the methods, depending on scale and other things, but one of the most common is calculating distance from luminosity. I should probably remind that stars are too far from us to use radars like we use to track aircraft. We’d have to wait for thousands of years before signal comes back. Anyway, the same 60W light bulb would appear 1/4 of its brightness if it is placed twice as far from the observer. This method is reliable (in science, not in Sāṅkhya, of course) as long as we know luminosity and distance of some starting point and relative luminosity of different stars. None of it is given, however, and the first “hook” was found by a woman, of all genders.

A couple of years ago there was a TV show Cosmos that I covered in this blog in detail and this woman was a star of one of the episodes. Her job was a “computer”, meaning she was given a bunch of photographs taken through a telescope and she was supposed to compute some stuff from them. There were dozens of ladies doing this job but she was the [only] smart one there and discovered that over time some stars’ luminosity changes in patterns. Scientists [other than women] figured out the reason for this pulsation, worked out masses, gravitation, and other related phenomena, and so a “standard candle” with known luminosity was born. Be measuring luminosity of other stars compared to this “standard candle” we figured out how far they were.

I pick on this “woman” part because her example is used to promote gender equality for all females but all females do not display the same scientific prowess. I mean we should judge people on merit, not on gender. Why should we promote those who have “correct” set of genitals instead of those who have correct set of brains? The question of whether we should encourage women to become successful outside of their family roles is also at play here but I don’t want to go into it now.

Anyway, the problem that the author sees here is that we are still talking about observed luminosity, not the actual one. He compares it to the sound of a plucked string. If you pluck it softly and close by it might sound the same as if you plucked it harder but in the distance. This sounds like a reasonable objection but the method in question doesn’t work like that in real life and faces rather different problems. If we bring this objection to actual astronomy forum they’ll tear us to shreds, I expect.

First of all, using the light bulb example above, scientists need to make sure they are looking at stars of the same actual luminosity. If the other “bulb” was 100W but we thought it was 60 then our calculations would become useless. Needless to say, it’s impossible to know exact luminosity of any given star. To deal with this problem scientists use star classification where luminosity can be figured out from the type of the star and type of chemical and thermonuclear reactions inside it. Coupled with mass and probably some other properties they can give an estimate of how luminous the star must be in real life.

Over the time they perfected this classification method and also noticed that some of the known stars were classified wrong, leading to corrections in calculating distances to them. I don’t know how the author’s objection even fits here.

I also thought of an objection that we must know not only brightness of a “standard candle” but the distance to it, too. How can we start comparing distances otherwise? On second though, however, astrophysicists determine star’s brightness from its own properties – mass, the type of reactions, the stage in its life cycle etc. Knowing this absolute brightness they can compare it to observed brightness of the standard candle and get distance from that.

This method is problematic but probably not for the reason mentioned by the author. How can we be sure we know what happens in the star exactly? What if our understanding of star physics is all wrong? Then this entire method would collapse. How do we know we are right? We can’t get samples of star material and we can’t even see them up close. Perhaps we build out theories of what happens based on luminosity and then calculate luminosity based on these theories. A lot of things can go wrong here.

In the end I’d like to remind that the notion of the real world outside that we discover through our senses is not supported in Sāṅkhya in the first place. This section deals with problems within scientific framework itself but reading through it might make us feel that the framework is valid but we use it the wrong way. Nope, the framework is wrong on principle and there’s no right way to use it because it’s built on false premises.

Also we should never forget that science postulates “facts” about reality when it can observe only less than 5% of it and has absolutely no idea what the rest of it is. Even though they all know it they don’t acknowledge this darkness of ignorance in their real communications. It’s the failure of their minds and display of cognitive bias – two things that should disqualify them from doing science right away. Luminosity or not, there’s plenty of darkness and not enough enlightenment there.