Stories of extraordinary motivation and passion are universally inspiring. Legends are made of this stuff. There is the extraordinary story of Link and his flight simulators. The man created mechanical flight simulators by great sacrifices, conviction, motivation and passion only to find that he could sell these to amusement parks. Things changed greatly after Franklin Roosevelt became concerned about the air force pilot deaths in 1937. This is a story introducing ‘The Talent Code’. I have scoured amateurishly on a large scope to understand motivation, especially my own lapse of motivation in mathematics after a promising beginning many years ago. My motivation for physics only sparked by a fundamental questioning of knowledge of nature and the possibility of objective metaphysics. The power of mathematics in describing natural laws I think find their limits in the question of metaphysics because only with a relative perfection and coherence of a mathematical model of physics can possibly reveal to us the hidden structure indirectly. This is not yet apparent because we have not undertaken the exercise seriously yet. This approach reveals itself with some fundamental new interpretations of natural phenomena, such as explaining quantization of energy via 4-sphere geometry of the ‘space’ of spacetime. Although my success in publicizing my refutation of expansionary models had been limited in success, a recent report independently found empirical evidence against expansion as well. I consider this a great success on my conviction of not only a static universe but one with a very concrete geometry for which gravity and particle theory have very concrete forms. One of the major attractions of a four macro space dimension model of the universe is that ‘objective metaphysics’ becomes a mathematically examinable problem. This implies that we have a totally new level of understanding possible beyond the empiricist picture of all that is real in nature. My interest in pushing slowly for S4 physics since 2008 comes from the possibility of this larger scope of science with state of mathematics and physics prepared for this next step for human understanding of nature. Although it is clear that a vision of such ambition is likely to be out of reach by a single person’s work, the intuitive clarity that results with the S4 picture has been a motivator for me to pursue this seemingly unpopular path. The fruits of the motivation are still not fully clear. Motivation in this case heavily depended on a very visceral sense of duty of reporting to humanity a new possibility that might resolve many nagging issues that surface from a frankly superficial if powerful empirical account of objective evidence. In order to see clearly one example of how empiricist theorizing staying very close to the ‘intrinsic advances’ of empirical facts can lead to complex and difficult to understand concepts is to explain quantization by the geometry of the universe linking macro and micro by the radius and then checking consequences against the orthodox picture. This has not begun yet one can imagine that there can be a large restructuring of the fundamental pictures of physics if the exercise is undertaken seriously (with larger groups of researchers than I can produce). Development of empiricist techniques are obviously great progress for human science but for the exercise of where we can find a sort of perfect coherence and simplicity (which I believe can happen with the S4 picture) one might consider empiricism as the training wheel for a deeper exploration for the nature of existence. In order to substantiate this, consider the hypothesis that I have forwarded on the key test of the objective metaphysics: that electromagnetism in our universe is not a -gauge theory. If it is actually a -gauge theory, there probably is no objective metaphysics.
If the issue of objective metaphysics were not such a ‘crux issue’ for our knowledge of existence that gets far past religious mythology, then I would suspect I would not be able to muster the sufficient motivation to come this far without solid institutional support. ‘Dramatic factors’ also have supported motivation, such as a sense that if any sort of justice is encoded in nature (beyond the ideas of Nietzsche that ‘justice’ is merely a sort of arrangement between parties of approximately equal power) then a refined science would be different from that produced by those who proclaimed ‘I am Shiva the Destroyer of Worlds’ before the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Of course, a good empiricist is trained to scoff at any suggestion of metaphysics. But this is precisely the fundamental issue that carries the great opportunities: mathematical infrastructure exists already to establish precision for the boundaries of objective metaphysics consistent with accepted empirical facts. The fact that the S4 picture is consistent with the ideas of many of the great minds of the past — such as Hamilton’s obsession with quaternions, of Einstein’s reaction to expanding universe and stochastic interpretations of quantum mechanics, and with the attempts of Nietzsche to critique science from a distant and artistic metaphysics in The Birth of Tragedy and many others suggests that far from the traditional empiricist dogma regarding ‘metaphysical’ the fourth spatial (electromagnetic) dimension of the objective universe is a true new frontier for humanity, and our ability to clearly understand this part of reality is crucial to our advancement in civilization. If we dismiss religious explanations, we could consider this realm simply as new phenomena of nature. Elucidation of this phenomena will require an extremely subtle and mathematical approach because our sciences have explicitly been built to evade the metaphysical quite successfully for centuries.
It is worthwhile repeating Nietzsche’s potent critique of sciences from Beyond Good and Evil:
‘It is perhaps dawning on five or six minds that physics, too, is only an interpretation and exegesis of the world (to suit us, if I may say so!) and not a world-explanation; but insofar as it is based on belief in the senses, it is regarded as more, and for a long time to come must be regarded as more–namely, as an explanation. Eyes and fingers speak in its favor, visual evidence and palpableness do, too: this strikes an age with a fundamentally plebian tastes as fascinating, persuasive, and convincing–after all, it follows instinctively the canon of truth of eternally popular sensualism. What is clear, what is “explained”? Only what can be seen and felt–every problem has to be pursued to that point. Conversely, the charm of the Platonic way of thinking, which was a noble way of thinking, consisted precisely in the resistance of sense-evidence–perhaps among men who enjoyed even stronger and more demanding senses than our contemporaries, but who knew how to get a higher triumph in remaining masters of their senses–and this by means of pale, cold, gray concept nets which they threw over the motley whirl of the senses–the mob of the senses, as Plato said. In this overcoming of the world, and interpreting of the world in the manner of Plato, there was an enjoyment different from that which the physicists of today offer us–and also the Darwinists and the anti-teleologists among the workers in physiology, with their principle of “the smallest possible force” and the greatest possible stupidity. “Where man cannot find anything to see or grasp, he has no further business” — that is certainly an imperative different from the Platonic one, but it may be the right imperative for a tough industrious race of machinists and bridge-builders of the future, who have nothing but rough work to do.
Read Full Post »