Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Sherds of Physis Shattered. A physicist’s testimony on physics, modern & postmodern physics

Sherds of Physis Shattered. A physicist’s testimony on physics, modern & postmodern physics

Ratings: (0)|Views: 13|Likes:
Published by András Vukics

This treatise is a multilateral criticism of physics and through it the whole of modern science. A pamphlet-like scientific counter-propaganda, exposing the painful narrowness of the modern scientific mentality, its inherently anti-spiritual nature, and the self-destruction, -demolition of science as actualised in the postmodern era.

This treatise is a multilateral criticism of physics and through it the whole of modern science. A pamphlet-like scientific counter-propaganda, exposing the painful narrowness of the modern scientific mentality, its inherently anti-spiritual nature, and the self-destruction, -demolition of science as actualised in the postmodern era.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Science
Published by: András Vukics on Jan 07, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/12/2015

pdf

text

original

 
Sherds of 
Physis 
Shattered
 A physicist’s testimony on physics, modern & postmodern physics
by D. A W
“Nennen Sie es doch beim Namen: die Wsenscha t uns nur ein Vorwand, um w zu tun, irgend w, gleichgültig w;d Leben, d furchtbare, entszliche Leben h uns die Seeleverdorrt, unser eigenstes innerstes Ich gestohlen, und, um nicht immerwährendaufschreienzumüsseninunsermJammer,jagenwir kindchen Marotten nach – um zu vergessen, w wir ver-loren haben. Nur, um zu vergessen. Belügen wir uns doch nicht  selbst!” 
G. Meyrink, “Der Kardinal Napellus”
H
avingbeenfunctioning 
inthiseldforsometwelveyearsnotaltogetherwithoutsuc-cess”–andhence,althoughthiswouldhavebynomeansbeenindispensable,havinfullled,evenifonlyminimally,Hamvasscriterion
wewishtoexposesometypicalcon-ceptualfeaturesofphysics,thequeenofmodernsciences,andassuchobviouslyoneofthemost prominent shapers of modern world and Weltanschauung.Our methodology will be that as the paper proceeds we continuously adopt more andmoreparticularviewpoints,while intheendweconcludeagainfroman elevatedperspect-ive.isis necessarysince while accordingtothehighestpointof viewweneednot havestartedatallaccordingtoallviewpointswearetoadopt,wewillarriveatastagewherewe wouldnotneedtocontinueanymore.Forvariousreasons,howeverandsomewillperhapsbe revealed by the end – we wish to accomplish this descent.
 Wearedeliberatelyavoidingthecontaminatedterm
work
ing,whichhaslostallitsqualitiesbytoday.Inthissensebereofqualityitcouldnotevenbeappliedinthiseld,ofcourse.Itwillbecomeapparent,however,that in the postmodern era, journeywork is very much present in sciences.
 WearereferringtothewriterBélaHamvas,who,inanessayintroducingGuénon,wrote:“[Tradition]isthemost decisive and only available intellectual move of our age solely for those who, aer ten-twenty-thirty  years of labour, became disenchanted by the whole of the scientic and philosophic endeavours of modernman,andlaiditasidedenitely.Forthesakeoftheauthor’sfurtherapologywehavetonote,however,that wehaveneverbeensectariansofscientism,andduringalltheseyears,wehaveevermoreintensivelyorientedourselves towards Tradition.
 
                
 Dr. Andreas Wolfsson: Sherds of  
Physis
Shattered 
Introduction
erearethreethingsofutmostimportancewhichgetlostforoutsidersandoenevenfortheso-calledphysicists.erefore,thesearetobeclariedbeforeallelse:rstly,whatthele-gitimatedomainofvalidityofphysicsis;secondly,thatitsstatementscanneverbeabsolute;andthirdly,thatfurthermorephysicaltheoriesandhenceallresultsderivedfromthem,areonseverallevelsofconsideration
non-exact.
Aninterestingresearchtopicinitself,althougheven more particular than our present topic, would be to investigate on exactly which levelof the dissemination of science these facts, which so obviously spoil scientic mythologies,getsuppressed.Itiscertainforexamplethattheyarealreadymostlyignoredbyhigh-schoolteachers,andsinceonthisleveltheoverwhelmingmajorityofpeoplestoppursuingscienceforever(beyondatpopularsciencewhichisnothingelsethanthespreadingofscienticmythologies), this situation favours the propagation of these mythologies.
Tobeabletoexposethesefacts,rstofallwehavetoexplorethegenesisofphysicalthe-ories, what a physicist means by “understanding” something, and in what ways and meanssuchatheoreticalunderstandingbecomesaphysicalresult,andfurthermore,whatisinfactto be regarded as a physical result. en already from a lower perspective can we show at what stages in these ways and means the exactness gets lost.
Denitions
Physicaltheoryisamathematicalmodelfor
empirically
observablephenom-ena,stemmingalwaysfromthestrictl
materialistic 
levelofreality,setupinan
inductive
 way by invoking certain
working hypotheses.
at is, it is a mathematical procedure or mechan-ism which takes the parameters of the phenomenon as input, and as output yields a set of measurable quantities related to the phenomenon. is set of quantities is to be regardedas a physical result, so these are ultimately 
numbers
which can be compared with the onesread by the experimenter from the display of some measurement device, or can be given tothe engineer with the prescription that if these quantities (length, mass, current, etc.) areappropriately realised, then his device will function correctly.
Immediate consequences
From the rst two attributes of physical theories, the empi-rical-materialistic origin, it immediately follows that physics and hence modern sciences,can neither prove nor refute the existence of other, that is, non-empiricalnon-materialrealities;
their existence or possibility of existence, stands strictly outside its horizon:
it isunable to touch them.
erefore it should be obvious, but for the sake of completeness wearticulate: Such conceptions that with the help of physics (maybe in the future, as a res-ult of further development), questions pertaining for instance to the existence of God canbe answered, are
gross blasphemy;
similarly to concepts which consider physics the researchinto the “thoughts of God”.
Likewise, it is blasphemous to believe that modern sciencescananswerquestionsconcerningandtakingexamplesfromthemodernworldaverylon
Cf. René Guénon,
e Reign of uantity & the Signs of the Times,
Chapter XVIII. “Scientic mythology and vulgarisation”.
Including for example the subtle domains of reality, which fall within the powers of magic, the angelic worlds, or the other world in general.
For an account of the total incompetence of not only the scientic but the whole of rational reasoning insuch questions cf. Frithjof Schuon,
e Transcendent Unity of Religions,
introductory chapters.
 
                
 Introduction
list could follow here, but we highlight only a few – the origin or end of the world or man-kind, the workings of history and society, the origin and essence of living nature and thethings to be found therein, or to mention some more particular examples as well, the ori-ginofmaladiesandthetruenatureofhealing,andtheessenceandultimateaimofgendersand sexuality.
e consequences of conceiving such things on a collective level, or con-stantlysuggestingsuchthingsthroughallsortsofchannels,andultimatelymakingthiswaofthinkingthefoundationofacivilisation,canbeverywellperceivedwhenlookingaroundin the modern world with eyes to see. Naturally, only a sacred science can make statementsabout these essentially sacred things on their merits.
Andfromthesecondattribute,theinductiveoriginofphysicaltheories,itfollowsthatit willneverbeabletosayasingledenitewordevenaboutthingsbelongingtoitsownorder.
Itcanmakeonly 
 strictlypositivestatements,
soforexampleitcannotdisproveeitherthattheaforementioned realities of different order may exhibit inuence on the materialistic planeas well.
“Interpretationsofthetheories
isis,however,notall,becausephysicaltheorieshaveanother aspect, since man is incapable of effective discursive cogitation in a fully abstract way, without pictures: hence the mathematical aspect of the theories is almost always ac-companiedbycertainmentalmodels,andreallytheseareregardedbyphysicistsasphysicalunderstanding or “physical picture”. ese are mental mechanisms which can be operated without mathematical apparatus, and hence certain conclusions can be drawn. ese pic-tures already almost always verge on the “interpretation” of the theories, and as an import-ant characteristic they are rather subjective. Indeed, during discussions among physicists itis a common experience how different what is meant by physical understanding for differ-ent individuals can be, and the similarity of this considerably inuences the possibility of cooperation.To many it may appear – putting it mildly – astonishing that in such a narrow sense wehave dened physical results, merely as the set of explicitly computed physical quantities,denitelyexcludingfromthenotionallthehocus-pocussurroundingthese,thatis,thevery things which either on scienticfora orthrough scienticpropaganda the
scientistæ
com-
Cf. Julius Evola,
e Mystery of Eros – e Metaphysics of Sex 
.
Sacred
 science
andnotreligioussentimentalism,sinceitisalsoonlytoocommonanexperiencehowimpot-ent the latter is against modernity – whenever it does not outright cut a deal with it.
Sharpening the problem to the extreme, we will ask together with the theologian Tibor Imre Baranyi: “… we wonder how anyone would refute an eventual statement that the whole universe bursted into existencequasi one second ago?”
According to the
Oxford Dictionary of English,
a scientist is “a person studying or having expert knowledgeof one or more of the natural or physical science”. A
scientista
(pl.
scientistæ),
on the other hand, is a person who believes in scientism, i.e. anybody who absolutises modern sciences, their methods, their results; evenifonlyintheirlegitimatesphereofoperation.Obviously,nowadaysthemajorityofthepeopleare
 scientistæ,
eventhosewhoknowhardlyanythingaboutscience,obtainingonlyafewcrumbsviascienticpropaganda(whoseverymission,bytheway,isthepropagationofscientism,displayingtheresultsnearlyalwaysasabso-lute). An example: it is scientism if somebody does not eat something for the reason that “scientists” “have proven” that it is “unhealthy”. e problem with this is that from the perspective of modern science it isimpossible to seize what health really is; therefore, in the foregoing sentence everything gets upset, so that

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->