|
Sent:
Thursday, November 08, 2001 3:35 PM Dear
Karl, Because
I think you are sincere, I will try to tell you how I proceed and what
motivates me. I
no longer work in antigravity, but only on energy and a single medical
application (extension of the Priore work).
The AIAS work has already shown that antigravity is there in
higher group symmetry electrodynamics.
So as far as I'm concerned, those who wish to do antigravity
research -- who obviously need a model on which at least the beginning
can start -- are just recommended to that work.
Presently,
following the heart attack and continued hypoxia, I can only work about
half schedule at best, and some days not at all
So I am unable to read very many papers and do lots of things I
used to do. Just now, my
main work is centered on (1) trying as best I can to complete the energy
book that is to be published next year and is already behind schedule,
(2) doing a little on the medical project (which is spearheaded by Tony
Craddock, who runs the website) and (3) continuing to assist the AIAS in
any way I can (I'm sort of a substitute secretary for submitting papers
to journals, replying on corrections and acceptances, etc.
I also usually pay for the journal pay charges, because the AIAS
work and information is so
very important to everyone.) So
that is about all I can do. On
philosophy, I also adhere to the "model" approach, and so deem
any philosophical model the same way I would a scientific model: It is
worth only what it predicts and enables concretely.
There are of course many models, and in many cases multiple
models have their own individual advantages and disadvantages.
One of the real problems, I think, is that far too often folks
take up a particular model that is useful and attractive to them, then
raise it to a sheer dogma, and very shortly are viciously attacking
anyone who has another model. In
my view, this is not the way to do scientific or philosophical work.
Yet also unfortunately, it appears that more and more both
science and philosophy are being converted to
cur dog fights between opposing camps, where each camp regards
its model as essentially "sacred".
In my view, such a dogma violates both scientific inquiry and
philosophical inquiry. Note
what I say of my own work: If
anything is userful, please use it.
If not, simply toss it in the trashcan. This
old human condition is a real struggle at best, and a quagmire at worst.
One third of the human race goes to bed hungry at night or malnourished.
One third has worms, for goodness sakes.
And so on. I
guess the most solid thing I've learned, at least in my own perspective,
is to not take a model too seriously, but just use it for those vantage
points it has, then either change it or find a new model when the old
one breaks down. And
of course, from Godel's theorem alone,
we have not seen nor will we ever see a "perfect"
model. Either
philosophically or mathematically.
Useful in some areas, yes; perfect, no.
For an adherent of a particular model, I'm interested to see if
he discusses the model's limitations and weak points as well as its
strong points. Mostly that
objective view is seldom seen in the advocates of the different models. The
other thing is that one sees recurring cycles of the same old human
problems and the same old approaches, often with just a new name and a
new set of buzzwords. And
the energy expended on irrelevant
or nearly irrelevant
stuff
is often incredible, re-raking the same old ashes. So
one sets one's task to be done, then simply places one foot in front of
the other to try to get it done. All
the rest -- the fuss and fury, the dog fights, the incessant bickering
-- all that is stuff and nonsense.
In my view, one does not live or die by whether one's view is
accepted or not, but whether that view is found to work.
The other criterion I use in determining my own tasks, is whether
or not the task is relevant to our needs and to the times.
Even then, one must recognize to which of our needs at the
present time it is relevant. Right
now, the entire earth desperately needs an energy solution or solutions,
and it needs far better medical therapy or therapies.
So what life I have remaining, it seems is better spent doing
whatever I can in those two relevant
areas,
than in the myriad of other less
relevant activities
that swirl out there continually. So
that is what I try to do. For
me, life has become very simple. Just
do whatever I'm able to do to get those three tasks done.
Whether one succeeds or fails remains to be seen.
What matters, in my own view, is to try as best one can to get it
done. I
applaud anyone else who has a different self-appointed task, relevant
and beneficial, and is trying to get it done.
But I do not try to divert him to my tasks, and of course cannot
be diverted from my tasks to his. There
is no problem when others have different tasks and are working hard on
them. The only problem I
have is when they insist that I divert to their tasks and abandon my
own. Otherwise, I wish them
well and hope they also succeed. This
sad old world needs all the beneficial tasks completed that it can get. Best
wishes, Tom
Bearden Date:
Thu, 08 Nov 2001 20:21:02 +0200 Re recent comments by Dr Bearden on the philosophers not getting it right, I also mentioned Rudolf Steiner's first book, "The Philosophy of Freedom", (1894, subtitled "The basic elements of a modern world view") in which he worked out the principles of monism, or the unity of the universe (including perceptions and thought processes). I feel that this prefigured all the quantum physics that was to come, specifically concepts such as those of David Bohm, so the philosophers were maybe not ALL off the mark. I didn't mention Wittgenstein, but I put in a proposal 10 years ago to the University of the Witwatersrand applied mathematics department (from whom I once received a first-class honours degree) for a study comparing Wittgenstein's Tractatus (published1918, the year of Feynman's birth) with Richard Feynman's concepts of quantum physics. Wittgenstein envisaged a theoretical space which covered "all possibilities", the trick then being to discover which, of all the possibilities, actually pertained. Very close to the spirit of Feynman's "finding all the possible paths", as I understand it. There's much, much more to Wittgenstein than meets the eye, including the fact that he was at school with Adolf Hitler in Linz, Austria. There's a book, The Jew of Linz by Kimberley Cornish, which proves basically beyond doubt that the first recorded anti-Jewish comment of Hitler must have been directed at the young Wittgenstein while they were at school together. (The story goes that the subject of the comment was not aware that he was, in fact, Jewish -- Cornish goes through the school records, and shows that the only boy this could possibly have applied to was Wittgenstein, whose parents converted to Catholicism.) The book goes on to show how Wittgenstein was a mentor to all the known Cambridge spies, and may have been THE central figure in passing the secrets of the atom bomb to the Russians. (Wittgenstein was openly sympathetic to Stalin, and was offered the chair of philosophy at Lenin's former university). If there's the slightest truth to any of this, then Wittgenstein would have been very well aware of who Feynman was. I think Wittgenstein knew Klaus Fuchs as well, but I haven't had time to check this out. (I wrote a huge review of this book for the Johannesburg Star a while back). So there's another philosopher who might have known a thing or two, although of course Wittgenstein basically later repudiated his Tractatus. I'm one of those who believe that he got it almost right in that book. Like Steiner's "Philosophy of Freedom", each sentence is supposed to grow out of the previous one, and the one "wrong" statement in it, to my eye, is the line -- "The world is independent of my will". (Steiner has an incredibly neat treatment of "will" in the book mentioned, that basically reaches the opposite conclusion -- that in the exercise of "will", the outside world becomes the object of our thoughts, rather than the subject of our thinking, if I remember rightly -- something along those lines). Incidentally, I never received the courtesy of a reply from my alma mater to my proposal. I am about as far outside the mainstream as you can get, which is why I now work in journalism -- where I can keep an eye on things. I sent some of my articles to Tom Bearden -- I'm not writing at present, because the situation here in SA is far too fraught for someone like me to say anything, but the time will come for an article. I am trying to follow things as closely as I can. Incidentally, I got three e-mails from Fran de Aquino, he of the System-G -- as far as I know, Tom Bearden has never mentioned De Aquino directly -- I wonder why? It seems De Aquino used Barry Holstein and John Donoghue's result on inertial mass not being equal to gravitational mass at non-zero temperatures as a kind of tool-box to produce quite amazing results. I have tried without success to get a comment from Holstein. I have warned my news editor that the moment he sees anything saying "Tesla" or "anti-gravity" to call me. Sorry to dump this on you, but I'm really not sure where else to send this very rapidly composed e-mail. Again, this is basically to have some check that my letter got through -- I don't have any expectations, as long as it was received I'm happy. All the best, and I really mean that, Karl |