hi roger,
yes, i think there is a connection with einstein's research into unified
field theory and 'inclusionality' in that both deepen the notion of dynamics
from the time-based motion of absolute-center-based objects (geometric
closed forms) to the inner-outer a-centric transformation of space (i.e. of
'field', understood as a spacetime continuum), which implies a shift from
the materialist western worldview to an eastern 'flow' view, ... something
that there is fierce resistance to.
that is, if everything can be explained in terms of field, then 'the
behaviour of material bodies' becomes secondary (as in inclusionality, and
as faraday showed was the case in electromagnetism), and this is what is
being resisted since mainstream science is hugely invested in a foundational
role for 'the behaviour of material bodies). e.g. what would western
medicine do without it? (it would become a supportive tool to eastern,
naturalist medicine wherein 'health' = 'dynamical inner-outer balance' on an
inclusionally nested basis, rather than 'all parts working correctly'). as
einstein and infeld say;
" We cannot build physics on the basis of the matter-concept alone. But the
division into matter and field is, after the recognition of the equivalence
of mass and energy, something artificial and not clearly defined. Could we
not reject the concept of matter and build a pure field physics? What
impresses our senses as matter is really a great concentration of energy
into a comparatively small space. We could regard matter as the regions in
space where the field is extremely strong. In this way a new philosophical
background could be created. Its final aim would be the explanation of all
events in nature by structure laws valid always and everywhere. A thrown
stone is, from this point of view, a changing field, where the states of
greatest field intensity travel through space with the velocity of the
stone. There would be no place, in our new physics, for both field and
matter, field being the only reality. This new view is suggested by the
great achievements of field physics, by our success in expressing the laws
of electricity, magnetism, gravitation in the form of structure laws, and
finally by the equivalence of mass and energy." --- einstein and infeld,
The Evolution of Physics
'letting go' of material bodies in the role of dynamical-behaviour sourcing
may have been achieved in electromagnetic field theory, but thought it has
been implied by relativity, it has not been achieved in gravitational field
theory, since it would mean that we would have to give up the
self-center-sourcing of behaviour ('first cause') in material body complexes
such as humans (behavioural 'self-determination' or 'causal
responsibility');
"Many object to self determinism on the grounds that if everything needs a
cause, then so do the acts of the will. Thus it is often asked, What caused
the will to act? The self determinist can respond to this question by
pointing out that it is not the will of a person that makes a decision but
the person acting by means of his will. And since the person is the first
cause of his acts, it is meaningless to ask what the cause of the first
cause is. Just as no outside force caused God to create the world, so no
outside force causes people to choose certain actions. For man is created in
God's image, which includes the possession of free will.
A further argument for free will is that God's commandments carry a divine
"ought" for man, implying that man can and should respond positively to his
commands. The responsibility to obey God's commands entails the ability to
respond to them, by God's enabling grace. Furthermore, if man is not free,
but all his acts are determined by God, then God is directly responsible for
evil, a conclusion that is clearly contradicted by Scripture (Hab. 1:13;
James 1:13 - 17).
Therefore, it seems that some form of self determinism is the most
compatible with the biblical view of God's sovereignty and man's
responsibility."
another example of where sciences (in this case biology) as a discipline,
simply discard scientific work that contradicts 'first cause' within the
object/organism, is in the case of biologists whose work gains sufficiently
widespread recognition to sway the understanding of the public and 'put the
heat on' the experts and gatekeepers of the scientific discipline; i.e.
stephen jay gould who insisted that the one-sided concept of 'fitness' in
evolutionary biology made no sense since, using the baseball metaphor that
one could not meaningfully speak of 'hitting' out of the context of
'fielding' (implying that the two dynamics, the former masculine assertive
and the latter feminine-accommodative (receptive/resistive) are not 'two
dynamics', but one 'relative' dynamic). in what has been called 'the
science wars', ... the gatekeepers of evolutionary biology have banded
together to discredit the ideas of gould simply by calling him 'confused'
and by this, discrediting the essential core of his thinking. i.e.
allowing relativity and field-flow concepts to take on a foundational role,
and making objects 'schaumkommen' or 'appearances' as in schroedinger's view
implies a paradigm shift to a dynamical relativity that subsumes behavioural
'first cause' and 'self-centricity' in organisms, that is anathema to 'hard
westernism', and is being resisted by physicists wherever it crops up in
philosophy, as well; e.g. The Invention of Jacques Derrida, Physics Faker
http://math.bu.edu/people/nk/rr/jd.html
'inclusionality' involves this same paradigm shift as in 'unified field
theory', wherein paradoxes such as 'which came first, the chicken or the
egg' are resolved by the subsumation of linear-sequential time with
spatial-relational transformation; i.e. the question emerges from the
linearization of dynamical experience which is essentially inner-outer as in
field-flow-dynamics, .. and thus meets with the same kind of culture
resistance from advocates of 'hard westernism' (advocates of self-centered
first-cause of behaviour in organisms etc., the decreeing of 'first cause'
equating to temporal-sequential linearization).
anyhow, that's one way of looking at 'the connection' between inclusionality
and unified field theory and why the current 'establishment' of physics,
which seems to be coming from a 'hard western philosophy', would like to
'bury' those works that imply its subsumation by the materialism-demoting
notion of 'field-flow'.
regards,
ted lumley
_____
From: A.D.M.Rayner [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 1:31 AM
To: Group concerned that academia should seek and promote wisdom
Cc: Ted Lumley
Subject: Re: Introduction: Roger Anderton
Dear Roger,
Well, there may be a connection with the ideas a few companions and I have
been developing in regard to 'inclusionality'.
Please see attached paper published in Philosophica 73 (2004) 51-70, and
draft introduction to a new book I am trying to write. Also feel free to
visit http://people.bath.ac.uk/bssadmr. I'm also copying this to my regular
correspondent, Ted Lumley.
Best wishes
Alan
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger <mailto:[log in to unmask]> Anderton
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 12 May 2006 21:41
Subject: Fw: Introduction: Roger Anderton
Hello to Friends of Wisdom,
I would like to introduce myself:
I Am Roger Anderton
My Main interest is Einstein's unified Field Theory
I have been researching this subject for many years.
And it might coincide with your group's aims of revolutionising Academia.
I have not come at this subject of Einstein's unified field theory from this
direction--But if you go into the web site for the US Library of Congress
and type in a search for: "unitary field theory" - the first book that comes
up on the list is:
Scientific Basis for World Civilisation: untary field theory by Leo J
Baranski
Einstein was not working alone on the unified field theory, the main man
working on it besides him was Leo Baranski. Einstein sat on the review board
of Baranski's phd thesis.
Baranski was supposed to be the inheritor of Einstein's legacy of the next
step in physics of the Unified Field Theory.
Now you will have never heard of Baranski--- Baranski died and was forgotten
by the rest of Academia.
And when it comes to looking at books on Unified Field theory no-one
actually looks!
So, this is completely forgotten by Academia. Students are discouraged from
looking in the direction I have just told you about, they are told to study
this and that and they don't look in the direction(s) I look.
Now, as regards this (what I consider) serious omission from Physics
Education, I will "not beat about the bush" --- follow the paper - trail as
I have followed it and things get extremely weird --- things end up in the
area that debunkers like to ridicule and make jokes about.
I want to get the information that I have out to a wider audience. BUT I
have had serious problems with being able to do this with the News Media
etc.
I am asking you please, is there anyone interested and able to help me?
Best wishes
Roger Anderton
