Rejected Section of Intro
from my book "Nature of Existence"

I   
hacked this out of the introduction to my future book (someday to be finished) because I didn't want to go on the attack. My book is to be just about my ideas and not their relationship with the ideas of others. It's suitable here because my web site is more of a sketch book than anything else.

The expunged "Intro" portion ...

I would also like to take some time here to discuss my refusal to endorse mainstream proponents of the Standard Model, i.e. the formal card-carrying scientists. There is something wrong with their idea of what constitutes genuine science. To understand my point of view, one must understand at some fundamental level the idiot savant Leslie Lemke.

For those not aware, Mr. Lemke is a fairly gifted piano player who is also severely mentally handicapped and blind. He was able … overnight … to play Tchaikovsky’s Piano Concerto No. 1 at the age of fourteen after having heard it once and with almost no previous piano instruction. The reason he was able to do this is of profound importance to all sciences.

Clearly, Mr. Lemke has acquired no ‘extra’ power from a loving but capricious God. He is in fact deprived of the fullness of being accorded to both you and I. His is a case of something missing, not something found. He has not gained an element of genius but rather has lost a normal part of his humanity. That part is what actually prevents us from being able to do much the same thing as he. With great difficulty, a normal person learns to play a musical instrument in some years of practicing a few hours per day. Yet we too receive the same bit of programming that he did. Why can we not then play back whatever music we hear with perfect recall as he can?

The answer must lie in the particular construction of human consciousness as our primary means of survival. We are "self-programmers" … this is the key to our survival. We adapt. We overcome … by conscious choice. To undermine that ability to choose is to undermine our ability to adapt and hence to survive. Mr. Lemke is not a self-programmer in this instance. The simple program needed to play the piano (probably not requiring more than a few hundred kilobytes of code) was created, debugged and installed overnight by subconscious mechanisms not presently well understood. I call it ‘free induction‘. This is what an animal does as its primary means of survival.

My point here is that playing the piano is an incredibly simple task when compared with the potential of the human mind as a pure computing device. Imagine you have a pair of robot hands, well articulated, which you must program to play whatever notes are recorded … a player piano of sorts. They are in the mall already, sans articulated hands, aren’t they?

Well, the universe is also incredibly simple in its fundamental principles. How could it possibly be complicated? What I am getting at is this. Scientists already know the true nature of the universe. They simply cannot get that information to come to the front of their consciousness. That is how discoveries are made, not at the Eureka moment but rather far before. The information is withheld form conscious knowledge until such time as the owner of that knowledge is worthy of it in the deepest philosophical and moral sense.

Think about it for a moment.

Scientists have uncovered tens of thousands of clues about the nature of the universe. Why can’t they put the damn puzzle together? Yes, it requires a feat of induction but induction (from specifics to generalizations) is what they are about. How many clues does Sherlock Holmes need to find Dr. Moriarty? Certainly it cannot be tens of thousands.

The reason they cannot find the answer is that they are unworthy of having it transmitted up form the Stygian depths of their subconscious minds to conscious apprehension.

And why then are they unworthy? First off, let me say that I personally cannot pronounce them unworthy. It is their pronouncement to make upon themselves. No one else can do that. I cannot limit the span of another individual’s soul. They do it to themselves when they consider the approval of others to be of greater importance than the truth, of and unto itself. They make their own constraints when they worry more about blending in than sticking out which is what will happen if they take up an unconventional position.

If you stick your neck out you may get your head shot off but that is the only way to get out of a foxhole.

I too am bound by the same principle. To the extent that I have unraveled the mystery of existence, I am worthy. Whatever is left unfinished is due to my own personal failings. I am not perfect and so my conscious understanding is as yet inadequate.

As a reaction to their inability to formulate a reasonable theory of existence, they now seek to ‘back into’ an explanation of the universe by free induction, i.e. what animals do. They accumulate so much information that the next level of induction becomes so obvious that even the moral-philosophical cloud cloaking the answer becomes transparent. This tactic is eminently workable … if you are willing to wait around for millennia. Free induction of this sort is utterly dependable but incredibly slow. We proceed best by means of ‘forced induction’ by which we attempt to force the answer by guessing it and deducing downward from it for verification. If correct, we take a big step forward. If wrong, we lose nothing but our pride, reputation, career or life.

Failing to try, we lose our soul.

There is something grave at stake here. If the world falls into another Dark Age, hundreds of millions of people will live shortened and miserable lives. Our understanding of the universe is inextricably bound up with our ability to survive. We cannot have one without the other.

On the numbers and kinds of individuals engaged in the pursuit of cosmological problems, I have these observations.

The quantity of people actively trying to resolve the ‘Existence Issue’ is probably no more than 3,000 people worldwide. Millions are interested in the subject but few would ever actually try to do work in the field. Of these, half are professional astronomers and the like and the other half are ‘the amateurs and outcasts’.

There is a statistical distribution of sorts. One cannot escape Gauss even here. Place these on a graph with quantity on the ‘y’ axis and quality on the ‘x’ axis and you will get a bell shaped curve. Getting rid of the extreme left will of necessity obliterate the right … one way or the other. The amateurs and the professionals are locked in a death grip whether professional scientists realize it or not.

How and why should this be so?

Let me first describe the mechanism of each.

Today’s tenured astronomers, physicists and sundry related scientists are engaged in a process that is 10% science and 90% politics. To keep their status, they must tow a line consistent with the wishes of their benefactors, chiefly universities and government agencies. It is anathema to this situation to stick one’s neck out. So, they don’t. And, they actively admonish dissent within their own ranks (often in the guise of peer review) thus increasing the admonisher’s stature in the eyes of those benefactors.

They are plow horses with standard accoutrements: the horse collar by which they plow, the harness by which they are tied to others in teams and, of course, blinders to keep their eyes fixed on the task before them.

Amateurs, on the other hand (the left) are free and unencumbered by any restraint. They may envision anything whatsoever and make a case for it (now on the Internet). But what they typically do is 10% science and 90% self-delusion.

Not being harnessed to a team, an amateur or outcast has no ready correcting mechanism to right his tumbling logic. Not being set to any specific task, he wanders aimlessly. Without the blinders he sees too much and is easily distracted by the baubles nature places everywhere one looks.

It is the blend and interaction of these two types that gets the job done. Show me a great scientist and I will show you a lunatic. One need only dig sufficiently into his life to find that lunacy. He becomes the great scientist because he sticks his neck out grasping at unconventional ideas … and then … reigns it all back in, squeezing out the awful and retaining only that which passes all tests of truth. He embraces extremes and develops the good sense to winnow the seed … without the assistance of others.

When these two forces are set against one another a schism takes place that drives all interested parties into two warring camps. The bell shaped curve experiences philosophical mitosis. This is the current state of affairs. At what may be the worst possible moment given the present population level, man cannot proceed to the fullest understanding of his existence.

We wait for the logjam to break.

In the ‘spectrum of possibilities’ I am but one of the 3,000 data points. Here I render my views and hope for the best. If you are reading this you are likely a college student whose mind has not yet been fully hitched to the plow. Try to keep some part of your ‘reckless’ freedom of thought as you proceed in your career even if only in private. Then you will be ready to pounce upon the truth should it ever present itself within the limited vista of those blinders.


Next Page


Ebtx Home Page