It's dictated, because it's the most immediately intuitive way of thinking.
Yes and no. Its also the fact that no exception to that "rule" has ever been found (outside of the apparent expansion of the universe itself). But I agree that in general even having the desire to look is verboten. But that doesn't necessarily limit exploration as strictly as you might think.
What happens often is that people find something; it apparently violates CoE and then they look into it and find something new and fundamental. For example, "hot rocks" (radioactive uranium e.g.) violated CoE. But then when you look, you discover fission and E=MC^2, and a whole new world of exploration opens up in the attempt to resolve CoE.
This is why its adhered to. It always proves itself correct in the most exciting ways whenever you look into an apparent violation in your investigation.
In the example of the expansion of the universe, finding that CoE holds there would almost certainly be the most amazing discovery of all time because of what such a discovery would reveal.
Nevertheless, I agree wholeheartedly that keeping an open mind about it is essential. I think you would be surprised how many physicists do though, at least from my experience. It is the vocal shills that are close minded about such things. Many physicists retain the open minded explorative nature of a child.
I have no doubt that the universe has a way to hit people like a boomerang if they get too distracted, be it in science or elsewhere.
You can only run from reality for so long before you inevitably run into it. I just wish that there was a more conscious effort to look into more "ridiculous" and "obscure" ideas.
Even if we knew for fact that CoE was a de facto immutable law of any system, we should still be studying under which circumstances CoE could be violated and what that kind of world would look like.
In most cases when you even get close to those areas it's immediately shut down, which is the unfortunate antithesis of science.
I don't expect any weird fairy dust magic to suddenly become viable by looking at seemingly ridiculous questions, but at the very least those questions often turned out to be the worm hole to a new paradigm.
Many physicists retain the open minded explorative nature of a child.
I seem to find that behavior predominantly in younger students of physics, e.g. undergraduates and graduates.
Professors seem to entertain the idea in public panels with other faculties, but more often than not appear as if they already had it all figured out and they're just there to shut people up.
Think complex numbers, Cantor, etc.
My sample size is obviously limited, but among the people I came across in academia I always found larger samples of the close-minded kind rather than the childlike (closest to God) kind. And the number of people that don't have an "area of functionality" outside of which they shut their childlike mind off is eerily miniscule.
This appears, so far, to be a common pattern throughout history and not just my anecdotal experience.
Either way, thank you for your post. I wish all conversations will become functionally similar to this or better.
Even if we knew for fact that CoE was a de facto immutable law of any system, we should still be studying under which circumstances CoE could be violated and what that kind of world would look like.
But that's what I'm trying to say. We do. Physicists look into this stuff with earnest intent and without preconceptions all the time. Not all physicists obviously. Many are dogmatic, but of all the scientists I know (and I know many) physicists are the most likely to be open minded of any possibility. Of my teachers and friends, I would say a quarter to a third of the physicists had such open mindedness. That's quite a few people.
Think complex numbers, Cantor, etc.
I used to think it was dogma and hubris that drove these suppressions, but I also know a lot of physicists that would not have suppressed these ideas, rather they would have embraced them wholeheartedly from the get go. Now that I am aware of other drivers of suppression (a world wide Luciferian agenda) I look back on these things as being likely just another level of control.
That doesn't mean all such suppressions are that way. People are resistant to change, but with that additional component, a lot of other things I had previously looked into in the history of physics make a lot more sense. Notably the Michaelson and Morley experiment, Bohmian mechanics and Cold Fusion. All were so obviously suppressed or mischaracterized. It makes me think that these are really good places to look for clues to leveling up physics.
Well, with cold fusion the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible. But a deeper look into aether (it already is a fundamental concept in QED, GR, and the standard model but its not allowed to be called aether) might bring about a TOE. The path to that marriage of theories might very well be through Bohmian mechanics. I've actually had that thought for a long time, but now that I know about the potential for active suppression by the PTB I am liking that idea even more.
But that's what I'm trying to say. We do. Physicists look into this stuff with earnest intent and without preconceptions all the time. Not all physicists obviously. Many are dogmatic, but of all the scientists I know (and I know many) physicists are the most likely to be open minded of any possibility.
Do you happen to have a reading list for this topic? My field was mathematics, but just getting the gist of physics papers isn't too much of an issue once I get past the jargon, so any level of reading would be of interest.
I look back on these things as being likely just another level of control.
That's what it seems like to me in some cases, although I do in no way suggest that the people who are complicit in this do this knowingly. And I don't believe that to be the case in the vast majority of cases. At the end of the day we're still humans and largely tribal in nature, so all it can take is compromising a few nodes in the network.
(it already is a fundamental concept in QED, GR, and the standard model but its not allowed to be called aether)
Interestingly enough, my professor who held the GR lectures specifically talked about the aether. And while he clearly pointed out that it's not the status quo and not something that is considered today, he didn't at any point make it sound like something that isn't worth looking into.
As far as a TOE is concerned, I have significant doubts that we will ever formulate one. The main issue I've had, not just with TOEs but in general, was the seemingly unbreakable circularity of it all. Every theory first requires very clear definitions, and you can not define anything without making reference to something else.
This means that either every definition has to be dual in nature, or that there is some definition that points at nothing and that can not be pointed at. Any such attempt is an immediate deviation from or fluctuation around the origin necessary for the formulation of any definition and theory.
As such, any attempt at formulating a TOE would potentially necessitate incompleteness if the origin of it all isn't dual in nature. And since I have no clue of how consciousness could point back at itself I do not see any way of creating a TOE beyond arbitrarily declaring it such.
Different people, e.g. consciousness, will then always arbitrarily decide if they are happy with the declaration or if they'll continue prying and the cycle will continue quite literally forever.
From that perspective, a TOE has been offered countless times. It just became boring and dated before being declared incomplete once more for another round on the "what the fuck is going on" rollercoaster.
Not going to stop me from chasing a TOE every so often though and keeping up to date. At the end of the day, what the heck do I know?
Do you happen to have a reading list for this topic?
This is a tough one. I was thinking more of conversations that I've had than any specific inquiry. For external stuff; I've read so many books and in many cases it was quite a while ago. Off the top of my head I can't think of any physicists that directly searched for violations of CoE, but it is a part of other inquiries.
My statement is really more of the general sentiment of physicists. I don't really know any that look at physics as "truth". And indeed, there is no reason to. Physics is well understood (by physicists) to be a model of reality, it is not in any way intended to be reality itself.
Here's an example of how physicists look at CoE. This is an example about the expansion of the universe, but it really extends to the broader scope of physics inquiry:
Here someone asks (this is not the complete question, but the direction of the inquiry for context of the answer):
My question pertains to a possible inconsistency between the first law of thermodynamics and the general expansion of space itself.
The response is:
There is no law of physics that says that energy has to be conserved on the cosmological scale. All current energy conservation laws we have are local. Having said that, cosmological non-conservation of energy may just be a hint that there is a, yet, invisible sector of the universe and energy, as a whole, may very well be conserved. One will have to entertain both possibilities for future model building. Neither is something that one can't handle within the known frameworks.
While this gives an idea of how physicists approach a problem and an example of what I was talking about I would like to use it as a tangent to elaborate on what I have been hinting at. It would have been better to say "there is no law of physics" (period). Physics has no laws, as in something that can't be broken.
The code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules. -Hector Barbossa
In physics we look at what if. We assume the veracity of things like CoM and CoE, but that doesn't mean we don't allow for the possibility of them not holding. It just means that if we find a potential violation, we look really really hard for why it isn't really a violation. But that isn't done at the expense of the truth. Physicists (at least historically and many of the ones I know) are not dogmatic about their "laws", but recognize that they are useful guidelines of inquiry. Any good physicist that found such a violation would look in earnest for how its not really a violation. If they didn't find such information, they wouldn't make it up or let it go, but would rather keep looking and eventually ask for help (i.e. publish their findings). It's true that the backlash to such an event is sometimes harsh, but it still happens.
The main issue I've had, not just with TOEs but in general, was the seemingly unbreakable circularity of it all.
There are different levels of TOEs. There's a true TOE (we understand literally all truth about everything) and there's the marriage of all our current mathematical models into one model that is compatible with everything we have observed so far (not necessarily everything that can ever be observed). I was speaking of the second variety. The first is possibly beyond the scope of humanity.
Yes and no. Its also the fact that no exception to that "rule" has ever been found (outside of the apparent expansion of the universe itself). But I agree that in general even having the desire to look is verboten. But that doesn't necessarily limit exploration as strictly as you might think.
What happens often is that people find something; it apparently violates CoE and then they look into it and find something new and fundamental. For example, "hot rocks" (radioactive uranium e.g.) violated CoE. But then when you look, you discover fission and E=MC^2, and a whole new world of exploration opens up in the attempt to resolve CoE.
This is why its adhered to. It always proves itself correct in the most exciting ways whenever you look into an apparent violation in your investigation.
In the example of the expansion of the universe, finding that CoE holds there would almost certainly be the most amazing discovery of all time because of what such a discovery would reveal.
Nevertheless, I agree wholeheartedly that keeping an open mind about it is essential. I think you would be surprised how many physicists do though, at least from my experience. It is the vocal shills that are close minded about such things. Many physicists retain the open minded explorative nature of a child.
I have no doubt that the universe has a way to hit people like a boomerang if they get too distracted, be it in science or elsewhere.
You can only run from reality for so long before you inevitably run into it. I just wish that there was a more conscious effort to look into more "ridiculous" and "obscure" ideas.
Even if we knew for fact that CoE was a de facto immutable law of any system, we should still be studying under which circumstances CoE could be violated and what that kind of world would look like. In most cases when you even get close to those areas it's immediately shut down, which is the unfortunate antithesis of science.
I don't expect any weird fairy dust magic to suddenly become viable by looking at seemingly ridiculous questions, but at the very least those questions often turned out to be the worm hole to a new paradigm.
Think complex numbers, Cantor, etc.
My sample size is obviously limited, but among the people I came across in academia I always found larger samples of the close-minded kind rather than the childlike (closest to God) kind. And the number of people that don't have an "area of functionality" outside of which they shut their childlike mind off is eerily miniscule. This appears, so far, to be a common pattern throughout history and not just my anecdotal experience.
Either way, thank you for your post. I wish all conversations will become functionally similar to this or better.
But that's what I'm trying to say. We do. Physicists look into this stuff with earnest intent and without preconceptions all the time. Not all physicists obviously. Many are dogmatic, but of all the scientists I know (and I know many) physicists are the most likely to be open minded of any possibility. Of my teachers and friends, I would say a quarter to a third of the physicists had such open mindedness. That's quite a few people.
I used to think it was dogma and hubris that drove these suppressions, but I also know a lot of physicists that would not have suppressed these ideas, rather they would have embraced them wholeheartedly from the get go. Now that I am aware of other drivers of suppression (a world wide Luciferian agenda) I look back on these things as being likely just another level of control.
That doesn't mean all such suppressions are that way. People are resistant to change, but with that additional component, a lot of other things I had previously looked into in the history of physics make a lot more sense. Notably the Michaelson and Morley experiment, Bohmian mechanics and Cold Fusion. All were so obviously suppressed or mischaracterized. It makes me think that these are really good places to look for clues to leveling up physics.
Well, with cold fusion the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible. But a deeper look into aether (it already is a fundamental concept in QED, GR, and the standard model but its not allowed to be called aether) might bring about a TOE. The path to that marriage of theories might very well be through Bohmian mechanics. I've actually had that thought for a long time, but now that I know about the potential for active suppression by the PTB I am liking that idea even more.
Do you happen to have a reading list for this topic? My field was mathematics, but just getting the gist of physics papers isn't too much of an issue once I get past the jargon, so any level of reading would be of interest.
As far as a TOE is concerned, I have significant doubts that we will ever formulate one. The main issue I've had, not just with TOEs but in general, was the seemingly unbreakable circularity of it all. Every theory first requires very clear definitions, and you can not define anything without making reference to something else.
This means that either every definition has to be dual in nature, or that there is some definition that points at nothing and that can not be pointed at. Any such attempt is an immediate deviation from or fluctuation around the origin necessary for the formulation of any definition and theory.
As such, any attempt at formulating a TOE would potentially necessitate incompleteness if the origin of it all isn't dual in nature. And since I have no clue of how consciousness could point back at itself I do not see any way of creating a TOE beyond arbitrarily declaring it such. Different people, e.g. consciousness, will then always arbitrarily decide if they are happy with the declaration or if they'll continue prying and the cycle will continue quite literally forever.
From that perspective, a TOE has been offered countless times. It just became boring and dated before being declared incomplete once more for another round on the "what the fuck is going on" rollercoaster.
Not going to stop me from chasing a TOE every so often though and keeping up to date. At the end of the day, what the heck do I know?
This is a tough one. I was thinking more of conversations that I've had than any specific inquiry. For external stuff; I've read so many books and in many cases it was quite a while ago. Off the top of my head I can't think of any physicists that directly searched for violations of CoE, but it is a part of other inquiries.
My statement is really more of the general sentiment of physicists. I don't really know any that look at physics as "truth". And indeed, there is no reason to. Physics is well understood (by physicists) to be a model of reality, it is not in any way intended to be reality itself.
Here's an example of how physicists look at CoE. This is an example about the expansion of the universe, but it really extends to the broader scope of physics inquiry:
Here someone asks (this is not the complete question, but the direction of the inquiry for context of the answer):
The response is:
While this gives an idea of how physicists approach a problem and an example of what I was talking about I would like to use it as a tangent to elaborate on what I have been hinting at. It would have been better to say "there is no law of physics" (period). Physics has no laws, as in something that can't be broken.
In physics we look at what if. We assume the veracity of things like CoM and CoE, but that doesn't mean we don't allow for the possibility of them not holding. It just means that if we find a potential violation, we look really really hard for why it isn't really a violation. But that isn't done at the expense of the truth. Physicists (at least historically and many of the ones I know) are not dogmatic about their "laws", but recognize that they are useful guidelines of inquiry. Any good physicist that found such a violation would look in earnest for how its not really a violation. If they didn't find such information, they wouldn't make it up or let it go, but would rather keep looking and eventually ask for help (i.e. publish their findings). It's true that the backlash to such an event is sometimes harsh, but it still happens.
There are different levels of TOEs. There's a true TOE (we understand literally all truth about everything) and there's the marriage of all our current mathematical models into one model that is compatible with everything we have observed so far (not necessarily everything that can ever be observed). I was speaking of the second variety. The first is possibly beyond the scope of humanity.