I have registered CvxCloudOpt in California to provide retail supercomputing services to the world affordable to people in the emerging economies. This is realistic because the refutation of Big Bang and QM are solid but S4 physics requires more work which I cannot have the opportunity to do without a more comfortable financial situation anyway. Therefore, the best way to develop S4 physics is by enabling the world’s 120 million scientists and engineers to do their research more conveniently. While distributed computing using Amazon EC2 for scientific applications is not new, a reliable easy to use service at affordable prices is an unmet need of a market worth around $4.2 billion per year.
Archive for April, 2013
One would imagine that the right to speak the Truth is a highly contested arena and one sees this to be the case because this is what is called ‘credibility’ in the current state of affairs. Since Hitler and Stalin, the contests of propaganda relies on this. For the past three hundred years, empirical sciences had been the bastion of acceptable truth. It is not accidental that Truth is an ideal of Republic because the destructive effects of distrust and deception on functioning society is clear. My own view with regards to contests of truth is that logical and mathematical coherence is far too often ignored in the claims of truth certainly by religions but also, surprisingly, by the modern scientific establishment which has been the dominant holders of Truth. I have taken great precautions in formalizing scientific criteria for comparison of theories in order to refute Big Bang and Quantum Mechanics. For example of diligence here, I use a quantitative version of the parsimony principle for the refutation of Big Bang. There is great value in full ‘normalization’ for coherence of a science in toto. Grand unification theories in an S4 universe is mathematically fairly easy. Careful coherence is necessary for us to gain useful information about the four dimensional universe avoiding the pitfalls of pseudoscience, although qualitative experiences are valuable — I use my own experiences to attempt to reconstruct my reality–there is a very great danger of assuming that subjective interpretations will not ruin any ambitions to absolute Truth. For instance, there is no question that Christ and Muhammad had valid and strong metaphysical experiences from which they learned to produce a reality but which were at the same time not absolute truth because the metaphysical experiences of others were different. To have a true metaphysical objective science, we must necessarily brush aside the current crop of dominant religions. They can be thrown aside for gross incoherence and contradictoriness to their teachings.
Returning to the issue of authority to speak Truth, I have since 2008 fully embraced parsimony and fit to reality as the major criteria to all ideologies as well. When individuals have developed ‘credibility’ within the social system based on any other criteria, then they are not following rules of truth but rather of power.
There are two fundamental drivers for CvxCloudOpt.
- The confirmation of the S4 universe on the Caltech redshift data implies that a scientific revolution can be implemented globally which would increase the use of scientific computation which CvxCloudOpt can benefit from.
- It is a public good to empower the entire world by affordable supercomputing services independent of governments in the rich countries.
These very large scale drivers plus the fact that no web services currently exist that provides scientific supercomputing services makes the case for a project equivalent to CvxCloudOpt.
Now it is worthwhile to consider how the forces in technology has moved towards distributed computing as well. On the recent end we have a buzz from Google’s MapReduce technology as well as academic research on Named Entity Recognition for processing the voluminous research text in biology for the omics. There is a giant gap between the movement in the US government agencies in distributed computing which has produced the ScaLAPACK and other projects and their full adoption by commercial technology movers. We have to exploit this timed gap as well.
In terms of the possible innovations to technology itself, we have concrete ideas about the future of GUI itself. The HTML5 standard allows us to begin with the foundations of GUI technology which has produced GTK+ which can use HTML5 as the delivery method and consider the standard new platform for scientific computing to be the cloud backend for distributed computing with interactive web or mobile front end. Dropbox integration can make this setup comfortable and intuitive and python Open Source code makes this setup competitive with MATLAB for example.
Is there Justice here?
It is not my job to right the wrongs of the world.
That’s fine. That is my job.
You’re an Anarchist!!!
I don’t know what you are but I am an idealist.
Good luck working with the Devil.
I am the Devil.
(A real conversation in a US court in Brooklyn in March 2009)
I submitted my arguments against the legitimacy of US and all national constitutions on April 6 2009, cc-ing hundreds of people and chose homelessness rather than be forced to retract these. Prudent voices had considered these acts to be unreasonable and irresponsible and I had maintained since that this was a historic act, and epic act, albeit highly symbolic without clear immediate consequences for actual changes in the world. I will quote directly from Emerson’s 1841 essay on Heroism to explain the heroism of this act from one whose clear penetration of the phenomenon is much more articulate than mine.
Transgressing taboo lines without producing physically violent situations is the greatest strength of social media like Facebook. We live in a time of entrenched propaganda realities protected by holy cows. This is no different from dealing with a set of religious mythoologies parading as truth. Debunking ‘sensitive’ propaganda mythologies can be dangerous in the physical world but they are possible on Facebook. For example, I was not joking in a US court in March 2008 that ‘I am the Devil’ and have insisted on being an incarnation of Lucifer, supported by quantitative evidence against a creator God. The theory is that human beings have a deep need for coherence in their account of reality whether this reality has lies or truth in their foundations. What is the difference between the man claiming to be the Devil and ‘the Devil’ himself? About half of humanity live in the Abrahamic reality where Devil has concrete significance. I claim to have destroyed the science established on the graves of Hiroshima, for which I can present actual quantitative data fit. This should have an impact in a world where the ‘superiority of western science’ has consequence for the status of non-western peoples (for instance, their lives are cheap and to be ended by drones or other repression mechanism at will with ‘security’ as the excuse). Thus many taboos need to be crossed and many holy cows killed before there is truly a single human race in people’s minds. Facebook facilitates direct communication and strong positions on it can legitimize a wide range of weaker positions silently.
ON THE LIMITS OF EMPIRICISM
Empiricism can be described in terms of a vast network of meaning by now, and it has established itself deeply since the Scientific Revolution and displaced the religions as the establishment with the power to speak Truth in modern society, but its essence can be described in sensory observation being the central teacher of Truth. The particular brands of empiricism that have active have proven themselves concretely with the spectacle of Hiroshima, to which Oppenheimer is said to have declared, ‘I am Shiva, the destroyer of worlds.’ I have claimed elsewhere that a refutation of quantum mechanics, or a discovery that the machinery of quantum mechanics does not describe nature, which the core work for S4 physics has uncovered, provides us quantum mechanics itself as an example of the limits of empiricism.
Let us repeat an abstract exercise in order to fix the context. Let us assume that existence can be described by positing elements and laws. This is not a particularly radical assumption as the possibility of achieving a description of elements and laws have shown success with Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory to Newton and Einstein’s theories of gravitation to the Standard Model of elementary particles. Then the minimal coherent mathematical model that can explain key or all observational phenomena but is strictly more parsimonious than quantum mechanics gives us a concrete method of transcending the limits of empiricism. Then S4 theory gives us a precise definition of metaphysical that does not merely mean ‘nonsense’ or ‘nonempirical’. My definition of metaphysical is in terms of a four dimensional universe and its three dimensional physical subspace. Of course I do more than merely make the mathematical connection and posit a purely mathematical artifact of a fourth spatial dimension but actually identify the metaphysical experiences of those of us who have open third eyes (the pineal gland) to be taking place in this S4 universe. The general identification is not new and was made by 1900 by Rudolf Steiner but the connection has not been developed because the empiricist dogma held sway.
It is possible to be ‘scientific’ beyond the limits of empiricism precisely by considering joint fit of a coherent mathematical theory to multiple observable phenomena and begin to make inferences about ‘the metaphysical reality’. In principle this not really all that different from the process of discovery of electrons because long before observation was even practical they were theories whose consequences could be tested empirically.
Let me skip to a principle closer to my life, which is to consider metaphysical experiences as objective phenomena in four dimensions and use them as input to the set of observations in the objective universe. This the foundation of symbolic interpretations of reality.
The apparently strongest objection to this definition of metaphysical is that we do not possess equipment yet to provide independent verification of metaphysical experiences which seem implicitly tainted by subjectivity. On the other hand, it is also clear that the subjectivity of metaphysical experiences is noise hiding objectively valuable phenomena. We enter into an extremely demanding territory because it is very difficult to find coherence in an ouvre of metaphysical experiences and organize them under narrative or some other structure that has any hope of universality. We know this from the failure of extremely related mythological realities of the Abrahamic religions. Having made the proposal, I will admit fully that it is an enormously exhausting and difficult task to seem to clarify universal metaphysical truth because of its complexity.
The limits of empiricism is a welcome relief for me mostly because it opens with evidence that the ideal of justice exists in nature rather than being purely a construction of the human mind. The successes of empiricism comes with some enormous and remarkable failures. Hiroshima had enshrined the worship of power from scientific technology and the right of rule by access to this power. The limits of empiricism crossed by overthrowing the science coronated by Hiroshima does not provide a mere novelty but seeks a new fundamental understanding of existence that is scientific and not misguided and confused in a muddle of complex mathematical theories which require decades of study to master.
PSYCHOLOGY OF PARADIGM SHIFT
In 1949 J. S. Bruner and Leo Postman did experiments to study how long it takes respondents to identify anomalous playing cards mixed with normal cards. They bracketed exposure windows and then studied the percentage of correct identifications of cards shown as exposure time increases. The anomalous card examples were red six of spades for example. Their basic finding was a critical exposure time after which the overwhelming probability of identifications were correct. This is from J. S. Bruner and Leo Postman, ‘On the perception of incongruity: a paradigm’, Journal of Personaliyt, XVIII (1949) 206-23.
Kuhn takes this as a basic model of paradigm shift and examines similarity in historical cases of paradigm shifts.
Since we are interested in sparking a global scientific revolution, our task is to produce thus a sufficiently clear and prolonged exposure to the major concepts of S4 physics. The strongest evidence now for S4 physics lies at the moment with the refutation of the Big Bang by a fit of redshift-distance data that is quite different from the usual expansion/Doppler effect explanations.
In our case the redshift data, the CBR data and the interpretation of quasi-crystals of four dimensional crystals are the objects of re-examination. The re-examination must be clear and given sufficient exposure to sink into the scientific consciousness.