Towards the Second Copernician Revolution by Dan Pitkow

Dan Pitkow

Essay Abstract

Humanity faces great challenges, and must forge a new global unifying cohesiveness. I suggest that the common factor between explanatory systems (religious, tradition, theoretical science) is that at their core, they all have unstated foundational assumptions and, as such, are faith based practices. This community can help steer the future by leading this understanding, focusing on our similarities instead of the differences.

Author Bio

Dan Pitkow studied Classics at the University of New Hampshire and later law at University of Pittsburgh. My main interest is in the similarity of human experience as expressed though literature, and later, through Asian practices like meditation and yoga. I have always been interested in narratives of unifying theories, and the neuroscience of perception. believing that when taken metaphorically, they have more in common, then when taken literally. I have traveled extensively for extended periods of time, and am now an entrepreneur.

Download Essay PDF File

Michael Allan

Hello Dan, May I offer a short, but sincere critique of your essay? I would ask you to return the favour. Here's my policy on that. - Mike

John Merryman

Dan,

That is a rather refreshing read. I am also of the opinion our imagination has played fast and loose with the evidence and while the results can be fascinating, they can also be frustrating.

If I may, I would like to add one more anthropocentric assumption to your list. I've made this observation in previous FQXI contests and raised it many times on the forums, but it gets ignored.

Since we exist as mobile individuals, we experience change as a singular sequence of events and so think of time as the present as a point moving along a vector from past to future. Physics further distills this to measures of duration to use in the math. The basic reality though is that it is the changing configuration of what is, that turns future into past. For example, tomorrow becomes yesterday because the world turns, not because the world flows, exists on some fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow. Now the reason this is roundly ignored is that it upsets some very important ideas. Basically it means time is similar to temperature, rather than space. Time is to temperature what frequency is to amplitude. It is just that with time, we focus on the rate of change, but haven't discovered a universal measure of this rate. With temperature, we accept the measure as the average of lots of individual amplitudes/velocities, yet that is what time is as well, the overall effect of lots of individual actions. You would think a faster clock would move into the future more rapidly, but the opposite is true. As it ages/burns/processes quicker, it actually recedes into the past faster. Nor do we need determinism or multiworlds, as probability precedes actuality.

Among other things, this undermines the idea of using relativity to explain redshift as an expanding universe. One point I keep trying to make on that topic is that when they say those distant galaxies will eventually disappear, because the light will take too long to reach us, that they are still assuming a constant speed of light across this expanding space, so if there is a stable metric being measured by the speed of light and it is used it as the denominator, then whatever is expanding is the numerator and that's not expanding space, but just an increasing amount of stable space, ie. greater distance. Safe to say, that's not a popular point either. Oh well.

If you have any luck with questioning the establishment, you will have succeeded where I seemed to failed, so good luck!

Regards,

John Merryman

Dan Pitkow

John:

Thank you for your comments. I follow your description of quantifying time, and it makes sense.

In general, I just reject the idea of time as defined by our perspective. I think that the claim that time is based on the earth / sun local system is fundamentally flawed.

If the idea and goal of Science is to quantify and explain the external reality, then how can we base the narrative on a biased perspective?

I fully agree the the community in general is hostile to ideas like this, as they have a vested interest in controlling the narrative. The appearance of "certainty," even if wrong, is safer, terra firma, so to speak.

Since, as you note, the true description has to take into consideration too many variables, the idea, gets dismissed, or worse, categorized / quantified as "dark," lol.

Dan

John Merryman

Dan,

Keep in mind that our minds work sort of like a funnel, as we 'process' lots of information though the sphere of our perception and this applies to how society functions as well. Consider that the "month' was originally the cycle of the moon, about 28 days. Yet because it just makes things complicated for planning holidays and such, the powers that be, a long time ago, pasted on a few extra days, here and there, to make them be units of the year. Controlling the narrative is what defines the community. We are the story.

Occasionally though it has to reset.

Regards,

John

Joe Fisher

Dear Mr. Pitkow,

Your abstractions filled essay is superbly written and I do hope that it does well in the competition.

You wrote: "I suggest that the new unifying theory can be based on the open recognition that all explanatory systems have unstated foundational assumptions at their core, that all are to some degree, faith based practices.

May I humbly present a unifying theory that is only based on the incontrovertible fact that reality is unique, once?

INERT LIGHT THEORY

Based on my observation, I have concluded that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real things have one and only one thing in common. Each real thing has a material surface and an attached material sub-surface. A surface can be interior or exterior. All material surfaces must travel at a constant speed. All material sub-surfaces must travel at an inconsistent speed that has to be less than the constant speed the surface travels at. While a surface can travel in any direction, a sub-surface can only travel either inwardly or outwardly. A sub-surface can expand or contract. Surfaces and sub-surfaces can be exchanged by the application of natural or fabricated force. The surfaces of the sub-sub-microscopic can never be altered. This is why matter cannot be destroyed. This is why anti-matter can never be created. It would be physically impossible for light to move as it does not have a surface or a sub-surface. Although scientists insist that light can be absorbed, or reflected, or refracted, this is additional proof that light cannot have a surface. It would be physically impossible for a surface to absorb another surface, or reflect another surface , or refract another surface.

Abstract theory cannot ever have unification because it is perfect.. Only reality is unified because there is only one unique reality.

Light is the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The proof of this is easy to establish. When one looks at an active electrical light, one must notice that all of the light remains inside of the bulb. What does move from the bulb is some form of radiant. The radiant must move at a rate of speed that is less than the "speed" of light, however, when the radiant strikes a surface it achieves the "speed" of light because all surfaces can only travel at the constant "speed" of light. When a light radiant strikes a surface, the radiant resumes being a light, albeit of a lesser magnitude. While it is true that searchlights, spotlights and car headlights seem to cast a beam of light, this might be because the beams strike naturally formed mingled sub-sub and sub-atomic particles prevalent in the atmosphere that collectively, actually form a surface.

In the Thomas Young Double Slit Experiment, it was not direct sunlight that passed through the slits. Light from the sun is stationary and it cannot move because light does not have a surface. Radiants emitted from the sun went through the slits and behaved like wave radiants.

Einstein was completely wrong. His abstract theory about how abstract observers "see" abstract events differently is wrong. This is what every real observer sees when they look at a real light. They see that all of the light remains near the source. The reason for that is because light does not have a surface, therefore it cannot move. This happens to real observers whether they are looking at real fabricated lights such as neon, incandescent or LED. This also happens when real observers observe real natural light such as from the real sun or reflected from the real moon, or from a real lightning bolt, or from a real fire, a real candle, or light from out of a real lightning bug's bottom.

Abashedly,

Joe Fisher

James Dunn

Religions base their faith in the words of ancient men. Unchanging words dedicated to Faith. The purpose is NOT to evolve.

Science in religious terms studies the Works of God and attempts to remove the influences of humans; i.e. scientific process.

Religion values the words of men, over the works of God.

So there is in-congruence: Religion is a static work of men, and Science evolves to more closely understand the Works of God.

Religious works are intentionally vague. Scientific works attempt to be concise and specific.

Religions believe in a being in the likeness of men. Science accepts that thare are potentially other civilizations that are so evolved we would not be able to know the difference between their collective conscious and God.

Religions give characteristics unworthy of a deity. Science continues to work diligently with no expectation to what will be found.

Religious peoples claim to know God, when they cannot know the difference between God and Satan.

The irrational acceptance of religious artifacts produced by men, over the actual evaluations of the works of God, make me believe that the fundamentally common features are so fluid and quite often irrational, that an effort to placate the two would result in extreme defensive posturing. Fundamentalists going to war for no useful reason.

Pseudo-religious leaders taking control of government to corruptly control vast resources and opportunities. Science being harmed by a profiteering mafia.

The emotional and social issues need to be considered also, not just the logical side you allude to. Religious people are generally not logical about the foundations of their religious beliefs. Scientists are not logical about the limits of their use of mathematics (limits and constraints). Both Religion and Science tend to refuse to admit to their limitations.

I do think you are in-general moving in a useful direction.

Dan Pitkow

Thank you for your comments.

I fully agree that perhaps the main challenge with, not just religion, is a literal and materialistic interpretation of anything. Other commentators, such as Joseph Campbell an Emmet Fox, have argued, and I agree, that religious literature should be interpreted metaphorically, not literally.

The challenge is to get people to develop enough self awareness to see this view.

As of now, at its fundamental level, "scientific" explanatory stories share this myopic (and possibly projected) human perspective. I suggest that this community can take a lead in pushing humanity forward, by categorizing their own assumptions as similar to faith based assumptions, instead of adopting what the fundamentalists do: I'm right, you're wrong.

Vladimir Rogozhin

Dear Dan,

I read with great interest your deep analytical essays in the spirit of the Cartesian doubt, and the specific program of action on all fronts. I particularly liked and I totally agree with you:

«I suggest that one way for humanity to steer the future is to intentionally establish a new cohesive global philosophy to address our fundamental challenges of income disparity, disappearing natural resources and environmental degradation. Since it has been said that "to change the world we must change ourselves," I suggest that this community can take a leading role in building the global community.»

«Since we know as a fact that our perception is limited, then it can be said that consciousness arises from the limiting and separation of energetic inputs, like a prism. Instead of "we the expected," perhaps it is "we the incomplete," hence our search for unification, sometimes in tall the wrong places! Instead of being the smartest species ever to grace the earth, perhaps we are actually the most limited and naive, because instead of intuitively experiencing wholeness and completeness, we are constantly seeking to explain ourselves and our place in the cosmos via art, music, literature and science.»

«Our humanity is deeply fragmented. So are we as individuals. One way to reconnect ourselves to the global community to form a new consensus. I suggest that the new unifying theory can be based on the open recognition that all explanatory systems have unstated foundational assumptions at their core, that all are to some degree, faith based practices.»

«Until we smash the embedded ego contained within our explanatory systems, and we quantify how the neuroscience of our limited perception projects our human experience onto the external canvas, humanity will never truly develop an accurate description of the external reality, forever building multi billion dollar pyramids, chasing our own tail, constantly spinning myths of hubristic fact and certainty, only to always arrive at the edge of chaos.»

It is very important that you give your deep philosophical foundation of your concepts. Picture of the world of physics should be the same rich meanings of the «LifeWorld»(E.Husserl) as the world picture lyricists.

Unified picture of the world for physicists and lyricists - then management of the future of humanity more reliable, because there will be understanding. A broad competition of ideas in science and society. Already clear that the time has come " Democracy 3.0 ".

The world situation is very alarming (politics, ecology, science and all existential risks) and therefore our responsibility to future Generations requires action. We need to hear the voice of the Earth, voice of the People to give up Hope to New Generation of Earthlings. We need a new "Big Common Cause" to save Peace, Nature and Humanity. Time has come and we start the path: «Towards the Second Copernician Revolution»!

I invite you to my forum and my essay FQXi Essay 2012-2013.

High regard,

Vladimir

Israel Perez

Dear Dan

Just to let you know that I read your essay. I think it is interesting and we have some points in common.

You say: I suggest that one way for humanity to steer the future is to intentionally establish a new cohesive global philosophy to address our fundamental challenges of income disparity, disappearing natural

resources and environmental degradation.

I agree with this statement.

On the other hand, I noticed some misunderstandings. You said: Numbers and mathematics as a symbolic structure to describe reality took root in 1687 with the publication of Sir Isaac Newton's Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy.

Not at all, the roots to describe reality with mathematics comes from the greeks more than 2500 years ago. Newton is the father of modern science and Galileo the father of the scientific method.

Also you say: And assuming that our local system is rotating in a similar fashion around the center of the Milky Way (which we have not quantified yet), and that perhaps the Milky way is rotating around some unknown

center.

We already know that our solar system rotates around the galaxy and we also know that the Galaxy is approaching other galaxies of the local group.

You also mention: Because the need for survival (the concrete) is stronger...

I think Darwinism does not apply to all humans, specially to rich people. They do not have to work to survive, they have enough money to live their lives without worrying about working. Since they don't worry about this, they have different worries.

Finally, I'd like to invite you to read my essay, I'm sure you will find it interesting.

Good luck in the contest!

Best regards

Israel

Dan Pitkow

Israel:

Thank you for your comments. I will check out your essay as well.

I wanted to clarify a little:

~I understand math was first used 2500 years ago, and also experienced a leap when the concept of "0" was introduced. But it was not until Newton that it provided a competing theory to Religious narrative in terms of creation, and this is what i am referring to. We should not that the vast majority of people on the planet still reject math"in favor of Religion.

~Regarding the solar system rotating, etc, we have not in fact quantified this. We have an "understanding," but my point here is that we have not to date quantified it.

~I disagree about your point with Darwinism. I think it applies to rich people. The competition may take on the form of money, status and ideas, but the same general principle applies.

Dan

Peter Jackson

Dan,

Great essay. Really glad I got to it in time. I can't give a point for each good element I agreed with as they ran into the teens. I also liked your direct and easy to read organisation and style. I hope I can persuade you to read mine, which I hope may represent a big step to proving; "Smashing聽the聽ego聽perspective聽will聽provide聽the聽"missing聽link"聽to聽our聽current聽understanding聽of聽the聽cosmos."

I picked out a few relevant gems, such as;

"the聽only聽structure聽of聽the聽cosmos聽that聽is聽consistent聽with聽the聽scientific聽method聽is聽a聽spiral聽the聽only聽issue聽is聽where聽we聽are聽on the聽spiral.聽 Perhaps聽many spirals聽are twisting through聽each other.聽 We simply聽lack the interpretive聽 information聽to聽determine聽this." Check out this recent preprint analysing a heap of interpretive information pointing that way; Cyclic Evolution Preprint.

"we're聽spinning聽in聽perhaps聽12+聽different聽directions聽at聽once聽and聽we聽have聽no聽direct聽experiential聽knowledge聽of聽this." I describe almost the exact same thing with Bob out in some other galaxy in deep space. He may be at rest with the local stars but the Earth may be on ANY vector and is in relative motion.

"The聽proposition聽that聽a聽particle聽can聽be聽two聽states聽at聽once聽is聽solely聽due聽to聽our聽limited聽perception." Spot on. I hope my essay helps with that perception.

"The community in general is hostile to ideas like this, as they have a vested interest in controlling the narrative. The appearance of "certainty," even if wrong, is safer, terra firma" ..It's called 'bracketing' in finance, see any risk and all run back to the central 'brackets' for protection. I call it a deepening 'rut'.

I loved your 'Uncertainty Index'. Great idea, but it'll cause much argument! I agree with Einstein about how much we understand; not "1,000th of 1%".

Brilliant stuff Dan. Do ask questions on mine if you don't understand the classical derivation of QM, but do get your score on before the deadline! The problem with QM is you have to learn nonsense first, and then for most it's too late; they're indoctrinated!

Best wishes

Peter

Dan Pitkow

Peter:

Thank you for your encouraging comments. I appreciate you taking the time to read mine, and I will check out yours. It is a long haul, challenging the status quo, but in a sense these arguments have been made before, and humanity "storms the beach," so to speak, slowly, overlong periods of time. There is no doubt my mind that 'certainty' plays a huge role in our 'progress,' even if at the expense of objective accuracy. I'd live to come back in a 1,000 or 10,000 years see where we are, if at all.

Dan