Saturday, October 29, 2005

Reality against Virtuality

I believe that the moment is near when by a procedure of active paranoiac thought, it will be possible to systematize confusion and contribute to the total discrediting of the world of reality.

Salvador Dali

It is now the post industrial information age. Each day we experience data transformed in both electronic visual and print mediums to our senses and perceptions. The data transcends both virtuality and reality. The convergence of reality and virtuality in News and entertainment, with science and controversy, with chaos and catastrophe, and the transformation of the delivery of data along the various modes of information have resulted in uncertainty and confusion.

Indeed how can it be expected to identify reality, when there are difficulties of distinction between reality and the unreal when the unreal is being realized, and the real being shown as unreal. Each day we experience a growing crisis of unrealized proportions .As Umberto Eco observed “crisis sells well” The question such crisis pose is whether attitudes have been undermined by the experience of modernity, or whether reality itself, something objective and firm, is an illusion .Is the paradigm now one of “there is no reality?” When the media, governments, and advertisers tell us that dreams are becoming realities, does this mean conversely, reality is becoming a dream?

The philosophical ideology of what is, or not real are continuing debates.The primary questions being ontological and epistemological. The former is about being: what is real? Is there reality and form behind appearance? The epistemological question is about knowing: what is truth?. Is knowledge by reason or experience? Or do our everyday systems distinguish between reality and appearance, and truth from falsity. We expect the system of road rules to regulate the traffic, and do not question if the other drivers are rationalists, or empiricists .Although the parentage and marital status of the regulators is often questioned .Previously the normality of the result of an experiment, performed by a scientist, did not rest on whether the scientist performing the experiment is an idealist or materialist, or the source of funding, but the outcome and replicability of the experiment that showed reality.

The transformation of the interpretation of science and the contemporary views on the ways science operates in both form and validation, and the variances of the determinants of science have caused obfuscication of the basic tenets and norms of the characteristics of the scientific model. This has formed an ideological involvement in scientific validation that has created uncertainty and confusion. and. a convergence between reality and virtuality that have obscured the outcomes and development. The loss has been one of order and objectivity, and its replacement by chaos and controversy. The underlying philosophical conditioning, the interpretation of the results, rather then the scientific model and reality. The Divergence from Realism and its objective reality and existence to one of the Feyerabend model of anything goes and his promotion of anarchy as an antidote against epistemology and the scientific method.

The social component of science also is an important determinant in the truth of the outcome. This is not only within the scientific community, but in the areas of funding and oversight. This form can see the suppression of some theory and the enhancement of others. The theories suppressed are not always incorrect, but in some instances far ahead of their time and interpretation. The example of the Austrian Ludwig Boltzmann and the connections he discovered with heat and thermodynamics and the notion of entropy that went against the social climate rather then logic whilst questioning Newtonian mechanics. Another is the Russian Boris Belousov whose work showed entropy could move both forward and backwards along the arrow of time. His experiments proved the mathematical theories of Turing were possible.Belousov theories and publications were dismissed as against the laws of thermodynamics ,but obstinacy and the persistence of one of his post graduate students and the publication of the BZ reaction saw it enter the real world of science and that a theory is changeable.

The philosophical intents of Feyerabend and also the misrepresentations of the ideals of Thomas Kuhn and his structure of scientific changes by Paradigms by the alternative and anti science movements meant the order or formalization of the scientific method has undertaken structural change that blurs the line between reality and virtuality,of possibility and probability.
The constraints of the formal method has seen pseudo science take equality with recognized science theory ,and often the merging of the real and virtual worlds.

We have seen the transformation from the Merton norms of Originality, detachment, universality, Skepticism.and public accessibility, and its cognitive structure, to theories that have the form and reason of Pseudoscience. These rely on a casual approach to evidence, spurious similarities, explanation by scenario, research by literary interpretation and a refusal to revise.

The last the refusal to revise is the primary indicator of Pseudoscience.The scientific method readily accepts this it brings order to phenomena ,and changes to the landscape of the theory often enhance it.The pseudo scientist respond to criticism but never revise their position,They see scientific debate as an exercise in rhetoric not opportunity.They suggest possibility not probability and the form often is hidden in the Virtual world by obfusications and assumptions.

Large models are often chaotic, which means that very small changes in the input variables produce very large changes in the output variables. Some very simple processes can amplify errors, taking the difference between numbers of a similar magnitude for example. The errors (or noise) are then propagated through the system. If there are feedback mechanisms present, it is quite possible for systems to operate on the noise alone. The larger models use both complex and irrational numbers and even a mistake of 0.0001 in one of the input variables will produce outcomes of low probability.

The outcomes are often only present in the Virtual world .When these models are often tested in reality the results are not accurate.The results in the models of the virtual world are infinitesimal.Grunbaum suggested that in a run infinitely transcribed the staccato operations each independent and occurring successfully in time ,which are not the result of an analysis of pre-existent unified and uninterrupted run .If we exclude the dynamic complications this constitutes an absurdity that an infinite aggregate can be constructed in real time. It attempts to reverse the infinite regression into the positive affirmation of being, to transform the absurd into the rational, and fiction into reality.

The model the Deity or God of the virtual world is created to suggest the infinite, the infinite exists only in the abstract and not within Reality.

Friday, October 21, 2005

The conjecture of Global climate science or what the Elephant teaches.

The Elephant Rhyme

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant (Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind

The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me!
but the Elephant Is very like a wall!”
The Second, feeling of the tusk, Cried,
“Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ’tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he,
“the Elephant Is very like a snake!”
The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he;
“ ‘Tis clear enough the
Elephant Is very like a tree!”
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he,
“the Elephant Is very like a rope!”
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

The Moral of the Elephant Rhyme:
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!!

The Elephant Rhyme John Godfrey Saxe

Sunday, October 16, 2005

The greenhouse Policy Coalition have released a commissioned report that attempting to meet our Kyoto targets will both stifle GDP and create economic hardship.http://www.gpcnz.co.nz/content/files/Castalia_Greenhouse_Policy_Report_1.pdf

There were a number of factors that have still not been identified by this report.One of the main points that should be identified is the Kyoto Protocol and its technical parameters are still not fully prescribed!These are still to be finalised .

With regard to levels of allowable emmissions for each country.We understand these are to be negotiated at the COP Kyoto Montreal meeting in November.The present allowable emissions are not yet fixed.This is on the agenda for the Montreal meeting.

This brings a number of questions to how New Zealand can go forward economically under and within Kyoto and the presumed targets of carbon tax to remain within the parameters you have budgeted for.

The extent the carbon sink credits for forestry was so remiss of parameters,and the reforrestation changes that changed the coefficient of the sink equation were estimated without the guidelines that were published in March has changed the risk factors.

These that were published in March yet Canesis had already predicted this anomly in November of 2004 brings the question of accuracy and ability of any of the departments formulating policy.

The treasury in its post election update provided for the first time contingencies of cost for 300 million dollars per year,This is set at 6 $Us per ton where as the market has been trading at 21-25 Euros per ton.This takes the contingency to 1.2 Billion dollars.

This brings the following questions .

1)Are the forestry sinks now finalised.(within resource change parameters)?There is futher discussion on the COP agenda in November and furhter changes to the Marakeech discussions.

2)The carbon tax is this fixed or will it change if New Zealand emmissions levels are reduced in November?Will the government have to increase this by 400% as allowed under its contingencies?

3)Are carbon credits for projects still going to be available as we approach our 10% allowable limit or will these be phased out.

4)What are your expectations of carbon credit pricing with the possibility of Russia and the CIS countries expecting limitations of 300 Billion Dollars.

5)As Russia and the CIS are the biggest future supplier of carbon credit emmisions and have been told there are 6 possible scenarios for emission levels and carbon credits to be renegotiated at the Montreal meeting in November how can we be sure for future planning?It is to be identified that the levels are still to be ratified in November.

6)Why have there been no CDM projects for either research or technology been undertaken in NZ?

7)Why has no funding been provided for new technology testing,R&D or the introduction of new technology or efficiencies.?

Sunday, October 09, 2005


A major research institution has announced the discovery of the heaviest element yet know to science - "governmentium." It has 1 neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons and 111 assistant deputy neutrons for an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons that are further surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like sub particles called peons.Governmentium has no electrons and is therefore inert. It can be detected however since it impedes every reaction it comes into contact with. A tiny amount of governmentium can take a reaction that normally occurs in seconds and slow it to the point where it take days.Governmentium has a normal half life of three years. It doesn't decay but "re- organizes", a process where assistant deputy neutrons and deputy neutrons change places. This process actually causes it to grow as in the confusion some morons become neutrons, thereby forming isodopes.This phenomenon of "moron promotion" has led to some speculation that governmentium forms whenever sufficient morons meet in concentration forming critical morass. Researches believe that in Governmentium, the more you re- organize, the morass you cover.

Web Counters