The Fable of the Cannoneer and the Observer
The Fable
A cannoneer sets up his cannon on a high plateau and starts firing cannonballs into the valley below him. His cannonballs are all alike but for every shot he varies the elevation of the cannon and the charge-the charge affects the velocity of the cannonball as it leaves the cannon-according to a pattern set in advance.
Science would say that an observer in the valley who would observe where the cannonballs hit the ground and how fast they are travelling would be able to deduce the elevation and charge used by the cannoneer, thus deducing the pattern used to vary them and subsequently predicting where the next cannonball would fall.
In practice an observer placed in the bottom of the valley measuring the velocity of the cannonballs would discover that they all hit the ground at the same velocity! All cannonballs would be moving at their terminal velocity, because air friction would reduce the velocity if it is higher and gravity would increase it if it were lower than terminal velocity.
Thus in practice an observer in the bottom of the valley has only one data and that is the position of the cannonballs when they hit the ground, with only a single data set he would not be able to deduce the elevation and the charge. If he can’t deduce them then he can’t deduce the pattern that the cannoneer is using, thus as far as he is concerned the cannonballs are falling randomly.
Now, although the cannonballs appear to be falling randomly that doesn’t mean the observer can’t make predictions about where they might fall. Our indefatigable observer finding the classical mechanic is of little use to him turns to stochastical analysis. Analysing the data he discovers that it behave, for example, as a Markov chain which enables him to identify a safe area in the field after observing the latest cannonball position.
Now, let us move our observer from the bottom of the valley to the top of the mountain. From his perch he can easily observe the elevation and the charge used by the cannoneer and there is no reason for him to guess at the pattern used; all he has to do is apply suitable scientific theory, i.e. classical mechanics, to determine where the cannonballs are going to hit the ground.
To apply classical mechanics our observer has to first obtain some physical measurements; he measures the gravitational constant and argues that the height difference between his position and the bottom of the valley is negligible, which is correct; he measures the air frication and by estimating the height of the mountain he calculates the air frication at the bottom of the valley, which is a good way to estimate air friction at the bottom of the valley; finally the observer uses his binoculars to check his results and refine his estimations.
If a troop would move into the valley using the observer’s results they would discover that their observer’s results are so bad they would suspect him to be a double agent. The observer’s calculations were good in theory but practice is a little bit more complicated than he thought; although the difference in height has little effect on the gravitational constant, the mass of the mountain under the observer has a big effect; and despite estimating the air frication at the bottom of the valley the observer failed to notice that the cannonball trajectory goes through different layers of air, each with a different friction; finally his observation with the binoculars were of so little value they only served to strengthen his belief in his own calculations.
Our indefatigable observer, after fighting the charge of being a double agent, identifies the weak points of his calculations and demands better instruments to obtain better results; headquarters supply him with an expensive telescope, an advanced calculating machine (an abacus) and funds research to obtain better measurements for the gravitational constant.
Despite all these ‘improvements’ I would not risk my life in the valley based on the observer’s ‘improved’ results; he calculates trajectories without wind information or current air conditions (pressure, humidity, etc.), he is still working with lots of estimations and his telescope has only made him more sure of his results and less eager to question his work. Demands of more expensive instruments are made; definite results are coming soon!
The Reality
The observer down below is our modern subatomic physicist (The High Priest of the Accelerator) who observing what appears to be random actions of subatomic particles applies stochastic analysis to achieve spectacular results; the tragedy is he takes the randomness of his observations to be the intrinsic nature of subatomic particles instead of a result of information dissipation, consequentially the most important path of future research is blocked by a dogmatic outlook.
Einstein said: “God doesn’t play dice with the world.” That is certainly true, but the explanation sometimes is more important than the statement of truth. Ancient wisdom recorded in catechisms usually solidifies into obscure dogmas then fossilise into meaningless phrases and at the end is discarded as ancient nonsense by people who have less wisdom than in one ancient catechism; the path to knowledge is an integral part of knowledge, hence the essential need for studying history as part of studying the natural sciences.
To counter the completely erroneous view that subatomic nature is inherently stochastic-a view that could only be expressed by those with deficient philosophical foundation and incomplete understanding of the nature of mathematics-one had to show and explain the source of information dissipation that takes place before a subatomic particle is observed.
This is the most important path of research once stochastic analysis is successfully applied, to stand still at that point and claim that there are no further steps to be taken, effectively declaring ‘The End of History’ for subatomic understanding-a claim that has failed in every epoch and in every field of investigation-is a tragedy, a loss of almost eighty years of little or no achievements.
Subatomic physicists has been stuck in a conceptual defile, not only unable to see the path ahead but denying, as a point of belief, the existence of any further advancement.
The first generation, which formulated the science, is completely forgiven for their conceptual original sin by the great work they did. The second generation, which applied the science, is not forgiven for repeating the sins of their fathers but one can understand their infatuation with the then incredible breakthroughs in technology and the exciting new results from cyclone accelerators. The third generation, which are no better than a social parasite, deserve our most venoms curses for they are mere acolytes who repeat catechisms with no understanding.
This latest generation has produced the least science, not because it has less people, it has more than all the past generations, not because of lack of money, there is more money than all the past generations had. They have spent huge amounts of money on building larger and larger accelerators, the failure of each one to advance the science becomes the reason for building an even bigger one; this process of enlargement has resulted in an accelerator as big as a city, the biggest pyramid is always built shortly before the end.
The observer up high is our modern cosmologist (The High Priest of the Telescope) who observing the vast cosmos with the latest technologies and armed with scientific theories that took centuries to develop has achieved spectacular results; the tragedy is the nature of cosmology has changed from an empirical field to a theoretical field, from a touchstone that sharpens man’s mind-the study of the planets was the path to mechanics and the industrial revolution, repeating a pattern that started with observing the passage of day and night and learning to count-to a field where past theories are contrived to explain all present empirical observations.
Modern cosmology has become a field where the scientist with the most fertile imagination has the advantage, where discrepancy between empirical observation and theory does not lead to reassessment of the theory but rather becomes a challenge to see who could imagine an explanation for the discrepancy, this flawed approach has brought forth such absurdities as ‘black holes’, ‘string theory’ and the exceptionally ridiculous ‘dark energy/matter’.
The modern cosmologists is also guilty of the now ubiquitous confusion between the mathematical model and reality; as a result of this confusion supposedly well educated people have come to believe that the universe is a ‘continuum’ and to compound the confusion they actually believe that ‘time’ is a physical dimension! Such confusion would be funny if it wasn’t evidence of the rot that runs from the base of modern science all the way to its lofty heights.
The price for this confusion is not cheap, they fill enormous caverns with pure water to detect imaginary particles, they build laboratories kilometres long to detect imaginary waves, and when a very advanced, and expensive, satellite proved the fallacy of their main dogma the so-called ‘theory of big bang’, and it is an article of belief, they simply explained the empirical observation by adding more of the imaginary ‘dark energy’ to their model; the absurdity has ended with the ‘fact’ that most of the universe is made up of never observed imaginary matter!
Compare this situation with the nineteenth centaury where the failure to measure ether resulted not in imaginary explanation but in a systematic re-examination of the underlying theory and ultimately science advanced; now the failure of very expansive experiments is taken as proof for the need of more money and more spending to finance bigger experiments and more instruments for the high priests to play with. The failure of one human sacrifice to appease the gods is taken as a proof that more blood is needed.
The main fault of the modern cosmologist is that he wants to present a definitive and final system of cosmology, one that explains everything. Some believe that modern cosmology is nearing this goal and declarations of ‘The End of Cosmology’ has already started, leaving only a few discrepancies for the young ones to ‘explain’ away. As a view that is surly mistaken, as a social outlook of a whole professional ‘scientific’ community it is a social disorder.
Watching people who title themselves Philosophiae Doctor (PhD) but in reality are philosophically illiterate repeat banalities like ‘Shrödinger’s cat’ and ‘dark energy’ without any real understanding would be funny if it wasn’t for the fact that these people consume a huge amount of social resources; scientists have become social parasites who benefit from and support the status quo, thus impeding both social and scientific development.
The social phenomenon of the high priests building ever bigger pyramids at great social expense with no social benefit at all is a worrying phenomenon to those who study history, such a phenomenon usually appear just before everyone ‘decides’ to abandon the cities to the jungle and turn away from complex societies to simple subsistence, actually what happened is more dramatic than that: people don’t abandon the cities they expire in them at a large scale, the cities are left in empty wilderness and get covered with sand or mud depending on the climate, only those who are able to sustain a direct living on the soil have a chance of surviving the total social breakdown.
The weakness in the philosophical foundation of modern science presages the total collapse of ‘modernity’.
