What's Wrong with Quantum Mechanics / Apology: Existence of Proton / discussion, incl. P Noyes, T Bastin, C Kilmister

0:00 But I, because I hadn't actually prepared something, I've got a few, I've got quite a lot of ideas, but they're all quite incipient. So I got as far as probably about a third of the way through, and so I'll read this third and point out a few things. So first of all, I was, are you here, if I speak at this level, that's fine, okay. So just to introduce myself, my first degree was in mathematics and that was quite a long time ago. I then began a PhD in history and philosophy of mathematics. This was abandoned. The first chapter was published under the title of Who Carved Up the Integers? Obviously a lot was gained, yeah a lot was gained but there was a lot lost. One of the big things was ontology, you know I mean it was limited but there was an ontology and actually the aim of having a philosophy of mathematics, it was so exciting what could happen if you got on with it. Yeah so since then I've been a fairly dedicated mother of three and sometimes four children and for the last... In the last seven years, I've also been a craniosacral therapist. Yes, so now, feeling that I have a little bit more time, I've been wanting to come back into this area. And coming here and reading the literatures is, for me, actually kind of like dipping in to see where to kind of go.

2:30 I think that last night I picked up one who seems to have some ideas along the same lines as me. Some of you may find interesting idea is the psychological alchemical idea that when we work outside ourselves we're also working on ourselves. We learn about the outside world is also a learning about our inner world. Newton was an alchemist. His alchemical work was concurrent which cannot be dismissed as a product of his dotage. The study externally was an attempt to turn base metal into gold. Internally, it was a spiritual work of self-development. Pythagoras also was an esoteric spiritual teacher, and he in fact coined the term mathematics. He was tar-mathemata, which means those things which have been learned. It seems to me that this learning was not merely an abstract mental learning, but rather that the abstraction. They all represented a psychological, spiritual meaning that we're not aware of. It seems to me that in the absence of our consciously embracing this twin aspect of our intellectual, mathematical and scientific endeavours, products, the fruits have become like dreams and can be interpreted in a quasi-socio-psychoanalytic way.

5:00 This obviously doesn't deny their power in the external world. I would say it derives from the huge power of the natural numbers, this natural being. It does, subconsciously embracing this other part, does account to some extent for the way in which the products of mathematical and scientific work have developed and run out of control of humanity. Very disastrous effects. Atom bombs. And it seems to me that Humanity's experimentation with these scientific powers or scientific technological powers as the experimentation of a child, if I drop this, what will happen? How can I build these bricks? And there's this huge kind of, oh, if I do this, I do that, but not thinking of a larger context, not self-reflecting on it, looking out to this, if I do this, oh, oh. This is exciting. Oh, gosh, I made a big stain on mummy's carpet. And I think the analogy may stand a close approximation to scientific history, but I haven't actually. And so for me, what happens, Newtonian physics is like that. Here I am looking, because at the macro level that works. I'm looking, you know, I'm not affecting the position. When you get to the quantum level, that no longer works. For me, the interpretation in the socio-psychological way... There are many, many tackles on the wall. The sorceress decides to play around, comes in and says, hey, hang on, you can't just be there every time. You think you're just looking, you are actually doing it.

7:30 And this here, I'm reading the history of science like a fairy tale or like a dream, but I think this is the extent that we are not even in a very conscious mental state but not of fullest. And I think, because people in this conference have made remarks like, it's the physicist's job to do this, and the philosopher's job to do that, and the linguist's job to do this, etc. My feeling is that now, it's actually the job of all of us, more conscious, to be responsible. I think that is the stage that we're at. We've seen what happens when scientists don't take responsibility for their knowledge, then the politicians, the money men, it is actually, it is a very big... So I see that, I think that actually there is to be done, which is reclaiming and interpreting this mathematical science, psychological or socio-psychological, seeing what this other means, there is more meaning than just what happens outside, and I think it's part of where we are. Humanity now as part of our moving forward to become right. So that's the bit I actually managed to write and I see I see the above I consider this a spiritual work. Now I have a my working definition of spirit having a sense of being aware of part which one could call but it's that sense

10:00 I was interested in what David was saying about reality. I thought maybe I'm in the wrong place again. I certainly was in the wrong place when I was doing my PhD at University College 20 years ago. I was thinking maybe I should be with people who are thinking about defining life more than reality. It's about, but I actually don't think so. I mean, I actually think that the combinatorial hierarchy is, and I think that it is modeling something where you could start with saying, well, maybe this, where we are starting with is this oneness, this could also be called a godness. It's something out of which the very beginning, I just rushed a bit more, yeah, the sort of, One thing that really, I mean, is vital is the question of what is our intention, what is our motivation in our mathematical and scientific questioning, because self-awareness of these issues are vital now. Our perspectives, again, as David was saying, determine our experiments and hence the range of possibilities of our results. Again, I think, you know, within this group and within this kind of work, It can be considered pure research to the extent that there isn't monetary gain, although there's personal ambition, but the intention could be considered possibly to discover or create a more beautiful visual mainstream one.

12:30 I'd be interested to hear. It would seem a fairly laudable and harmless aim. The problem with a lot of the scientific work is that it is now... There's an increasing tendency for academic institutions to seek funding from this, and there's less and less research with that pure aim anyway, so there is a huge, huge pressure on what comes out. So in a way, I think people talk about paradigm shifts in physics, and I think in a way I'm more interested in a shift generally in mathematics. The other sort of couple of things that I just want, I would like to put to do with mathematics itself, the kind of mathematics that we have now, is again, is a very powerful mathematics. One of the, one thing about it is it is primarily derived from the visual sense. The visual sense, yes. So that, and I think that obviously, you know, this was the thing, you know, the move from alchemy to chemistry, as someone was mentioning yesterday, you know, clearly has to do with being able to be quantitative.

15:00 A quantitative analysis is not the be all and end all. It is that sense of the question of, in fact, certainly the kind of work we, mathematics and science have been able to be very accurate, very... Quantifying things allows that. It is much more difficult to work in the area of quality to find that kind of precision, and it also, there's also then this question of the intersubjective creation of ideas, agreement, agreement of terms, I mean, you know, David again yesterday was saying, well, he was, he thought to say, well, what is consistency? You know, it's a very important concept. I mean that's still within a very you know normal scientific but even you know if you go sort of outside of that then it becomes that even more difficult and life is full of very important and so this is the question of oh that's right again yes so there was a question of language was something you know that came up in David's talk yesterday about how we are locked into our language.

17:30 I don't know if anybody knows Benjamin Worf? Yes, Benjamin E. Worf, that's right. I'm particularly interested in the language and so in fact, so it appears, so it seems closer to a scientific, has a different slant. Now we are locked in our language because into the structure of And David was saying, well, is it possible? I think there is this idea that maybe it's not possible to get out. I mean, I think that it is very difficult, but I think it is possible. And I think that the way it, through silence kind of way that one can, in fact, I mean, in that connection, I was just going to mention, I thought I would mention the craniosacral therapy, also because there was this idea of talking about paranormal as well. So, I have some experience of this through my work as a craniologist. I mean, I guess I don't know if there's anybody... I guess most people don't know about craniosacral therapy. So, the basis is that the cranium is here and the sacrum is here. Between is the spine. Inside the cranium there is cerebrospinal fluid, and this is a fluid...

20:00 which cushions the brain inside the skull and also runs down inside the spine and just as with any fluid the emotion otherwise it would stagnate and there is a natural motion a natural rhythm it it it comes out it's some fascinating stuff it comes out they really are Anyway, so it comes out from the blood and goes back into the blood. One of the key ideas of craniums, the basic notion is to listen. So that what you're doing is body-led therapy rather than a mind-led therapy. So you're listening to the body and you're asking. That's right, yes, I'm sorry, I haven't explained. It seems to me that if there's a scientific account of it, explanation of it, then it would be at a quantum physical because... It is actually the act of observation which gives the energy for the shift.

22:30 So one is giving attention and you notice. Those are the main things that I was going to say about Dwight and Coffey. It would register anything? I don't know. I mean, the experiment, what has happened... I mean, the fact is that cranial osteopaths and craniosacral therapists have noticed normal medicine initially could not measure the movement of the plates. So, initially, they can now measure some of the things that people have been, you know, the thing is that, I mean, I don't know whether that's happened. All I know is that, I mean, I think, you see, I think there are some already, you know, I mean, I think that, you know, for example, topology, you know, there are some, there are some, like, non-quantitative have come out. In a way, I mean, you know, I don't know. In a way, I have to be done.

25:00 You know, I think that there's actually, you know, so I think that for me, I think there's a kind of twofold thing of actually looking at the maths that has been done. I mean, particularly maths around number, you know, from the Greek period on, reclaiming it is in a way that

27:30 You know, the Pythagoreans, well not totally the way the Pythagoreans were, but partly, partly, there was the Hullais and the, so there was the study of the quantitative aspect, oh no sorry, it was called logisticae, and that's what was kind of, you know, grew tremendously, and then the other side was called aricae, and that was the study of each number. I'm not sure, because I think, you see, I think that logic... Well, certainly logic as it's come down from sort of Aristotelian logic, in fact. Well, it's got lost. I mean, the logos, this is gone. Yes, I mean, Aristotle was very clear about the limitations of this, but since then there hasn't been that clarity of... It occurs to me that Heraclitus' idea of it was that it was divine.

30:00 Yeah, yes, it took him to something quite different. And I mean, we thought that logic is sociology. Yes, that is a very different... It is very different. Yeah, I've read Marie-Louise von Frantz, yeah.

32:30 Because that is discussing it. It is, it is. Von Frantz, Marie-Louise von Frantz. It's a fascinating book. She goes up to a number five. I should have got in touch with her before she died. How many pages? No, she's still a couple of hundred pages on it. There's a lot, yeah. I say unless you can find a solution these are going to do something else and I always know when I'm not solving it because I get sort of I think quite a few people work them inside this luminous machine which looks at me and changes and I process them into that isn't involved yes I think there is a place come back yes I mean I think there is something I mean this is why I mean I actually like

40:00 I think it's very difficult to use the word God for a long time because it's that way, but it's appreciation. It's the appreciation of what we are given, that we are given life, that we are these tiny beings that have done amazing things. So I think that this magic is, and maybe there is a more feminine side. I certainly think that the memory and say that we extract from history just as we extract from our memories would choose to in a way what what is it separated out but I mean what what part of that

47:30 ...as well as white magic. And what I'm talking about is that I think a lot of the chap that I'm next to, the flat next to me, Australia, and he's over here to work on a book, research a book on the effort. There's this idea in science, well, there's somehow magic. Well, if it's magic, it must be good. And if there's money in it, damn! ...magic. We've been tempted to say we can do it, so we should do it. Without thinking about the long-term consequences is huge. They're saying we're going to learn a lot of things the hard way. Most of the things we learn, we learn the hard way.

50:00 Well I started affirming for gentle lessons in my life. So it's 11 o'clock. I suggest if Bill wants to start us off again on a different... Yeah, and then we have a break after. Now, I don't want to talk for more than 10 minutes. I'm mainly interested in your responses and your opinions. That's one thing. All right, we'll hold you to that. That's it. That's it. We will hold you to that. I missed it. I was sorry. ...paper that I really needed another two or three hours. It's a misprint of all that. I'm trying to do something revolutionary. Dealing with agents. It's like trying to hire a crooked lawyer. Because they do the best for people who are getting divorces. But there are lots of them around, and we'll see what happens. The main thing I'd like to introduce and to find out from you is your attitudes toward some of my basic approaches. I'm a realist. What I want to do is put together a classical and post-QM theory. It's beyond both of them, incorporating, it's retaining relativistic covariance and invariance, retaining all of the experimental results of quantum mechanics, but getting rid of, well, realist, that is, providing literal pictures of reality of such transparent, of such transcendent clarity that to understand the picture is to understand what's going on.

52:30 That's what we're asking for.

57:30 It doesn't matter whether you're talking about aunts and uncles and cousins or you're talking about colors. You don't have to be talking about numbers. It's quite a general theory.

1:00:00 And I think he is well on the way to solving that problem. And close enough so that at least somebody who understood what he was doing got him a very fancy job for a few months at Hewlett-Packard on the basis of it. And some mathematics is a way to do from there to where he just had an... he wanted a classical theory. He wanted a theory of the kind Einstein wanted.

1:02:30 In what sense is the quantum mechanics normal? Can't you call that a post-classical theory? I mean, those are those ethos kids. They're impossible. They can't support it. But if they do, they are post-class. This is the quantum stuff.

1:05:00 Okay. Okay. Results, which eventually... And everything like that. What do you say?

1:07:30 So the lack of virtues of...

1:12:30 I'm not so gently.

1:15:00 If anyone wants to look, look at it. Come at me from all directions. I'm in a kind of war with food and traps. It's what my wife calls the Ben-Hur syndrome. You know what the Ben-Hur is? You know, keep on fighting when everything's solved and they think this is what you've been trying to say. Yeah, yeah. Okay, my apologies. I'm sorry for all the noise and shouting. This is on tape that you're in. Oh, I can say that academic style. Philosopher, you know, you're no use to us physicists.

1:17:30 Philosophers, because now you're lying as well, or something.

1:30:00 I said something on that side, like Austin's sense of a similar kind.

1:32:30 The course manifestly failed, as they would have been the first to admit. I was wondering, I thought I was sort of a...