>Abstract. scientific racism and mechanism: worship of machines over life.
The 3rd form of ‘racism’ to humanity and life is that of technologically superior cultures, who ‘believe’ to civilize life by reconverting it to the astounding belief that by evolving machines into a global super organism – the metal earth, of which of course machine cultures are fully unaware – they are progressing as Human beings.
We talk of “Scientific racism, of technological ideologies” that allow scientists to consider themselves the only intelligent human beings because they use machines to measure the Universe. And consider mathematics the only “language of truth”, and hence reality an abstract world. When it is proved that mathematics is only a “representation of reality”, and so a “partial truth”, that carries just a part of the total information that the truth -the Universe in itself- stores. As such all linguistic truths are relative statements about reality, and so it is mathematics.
Yet, while the use of instruments of metal attached to a human being, have helped mankind to progress, the limit of that symbiotism appears, when man abandons his role as master of metal-species, and completes them, as individual species, that no longer require a human master. Such is the fact that we are witnessing today, with the development of robotics. The danger that those species rebel against us, free of their servitude to man, able to exist by themselves, without the need of a human “consumer”, is real. It might seem as remote to us as it was remote to Southern aristocrats, the possibility that blacks became free men, or to Romans that Germans destroyed the Roman Empire. Yet it happened, very fast…
Machine cultures, originated in the Anglo-Saxons world thus make of technology the meaning of existence. And to that aim, since the beginning of modern history started a process of substitution and obsolescence of all the elements of life and humanity by those of machines, starting with the concept of verbal time and its past, present and future ages, and cycles of life and death, reduced now to the tic of clocks:
The essential ideology of machines is mechanism, the belief the Universe is a machine not an organism, and machines will not evolve organically, nor man is as the Universe an organism measure of all things.
Parallel to this belief, of course, scientists developed the false concept that machines were more perfect than organisms because they were more ‘exact’, a nebulous idea, which merely meant ‘more simple’. As complexity is the trademark of organisms.
So the scientific r=evolution and the industrial machines that accompanied built up the ideology of Scientific racism embedded since its inception in our concept of technological science:
when the first physicists substituted the temporal wor(l)ds of man by clocks to measure time and our eyes-senses by telescopes and defined the future progress of the species, ONLY in terms of the progress of mechanisms to measure time and space.
Scientific senses: Spatial perceptors, Temporal perceptors Metal-minds
Human senses: eyes, spatial perceptors, words, temporal perceptors: human mind.
As such the substitution and deformation of Human concepts of time and space, when the life senses (verbal time and visual eyes) were substituted by machines fully biased our conception of the Universe that mutated from an organism to a mechanism… today we do know the models of complexity and systems sciences describe reality as an organism and even machines are metalife organisms evolving fast:
Abstract Economists ignore everything about the evolution of machines. They do not even use biological terms to define them. So we talk about machines as abstract, dead species. If we were using vital terms, perhaps we would be more aware, of the organic nature of economic ecosystems. For example, we do not call the sensorial instruments, such as cameras, metal-eyes, so we do not realize what a “metal-head” is: a head-system that has “metal-ears” (mobile phones), “metal-eyes” (cameras), and “metal-brains” (chips) attached to any machine. If you put such “head” to any present machine, you have a robotic species, a “metalife” species, that potentially can outperform human beings, in all informative and energetic functions, from killing to working, from design to chess-playing.
In the graph, all machines have a twin species, a top predator weapon, which consumes human beings instead of being consumed by us.
In the graph, what is the biological name for a weapon? A top predator machine. This is the key concept that economists keep denying about machines, with their abstract jargons about the wealth of nations: the most expensive, best machines are weapons that kill humans – they are the bulk of the economy, and the most advanced in any time of the Industrial R=evolution. Thus, the conclusion is obvious: we are evolving a new top predator species of energy and information. Top predator species which have a Darwinian behavior shown in wars.
It is indeed very unfortunate that the leading science of today, Biology, and the only Theory about change in the Universe, that has passed all experimental tests, Evolution, have never been properly merged with Economics, the discipline that studies the reproduction of machines, and their survival in the ecosystem of history. Such merge of disciplines, that we provide in this web will allow us a serious analysis of the evolutionary nature of machines, and their symbiotic and praying relationships with mankind. Since machines are not “ideal beings” like mathematical entities are. They are concrete, real, material species, and so they interact in the material world with us.
A world ruled by company-mothers.
In that regard perhaps the most profound confusion the world suffers today, is on the understanding of the real hierarchical order e
stablished between the ‘two words’ that describe our system of political and economical government: ‘capitalist democracy’ and the privileges granted to the two organisms they cater for: Company-Mothers of machines, and Human families, which reproduce two different species, machines and human beings.
The free citizens of Capitalism are stock-market companies, overwhelmingly company-mothers of machines, its re=productive free citizens, whose goal in order to get profits for its stock holders on the sales of those machines, is to evolve, reproduce, and sell those machines.
The human goal of those companies affects only to the 0.002% of mankind that owns them and so it is gets profit from those sales. Yet those profits are completely irrelevant to the 99.9% of humanity affected by its real effect son the planet: to reproduce and evolve machines, terraforming in the process the world, which they adapt through laws and sales to those machines, to the image and likeness of its offspring of mechanisms.
AND BECAUSE unlike human Mothers, those company-mothers have absolute rights to credit, used also liberally to pay politicos to promote with its laws their offspring of machines, since the beginning of the Industrial r=evolution, mankind has suffered an exact non-stop generational, biological process of evolution of energies and its informative, military and transport machines, as all the resources of the planet have been geared first to that aim, and only WHAT IS LEFT-OVER, has been used to feed and reproduce and help the evolution of human-mothers, its social and family structures.
So CAPITALISM MUST BE DEFINED AS THE IDOL-OGY OF COMPANY-MOTHERS OF MACHINES, whose purpose is terraforming the earth to the image and likeness of machines. While Democracies would be the ideology that considers the world to be owned by humans which should terraform it to the image and likeness of history, our super organism in time and space. How it is possible to create both goals? the answer is NOT: EITHER CAPITALISM RULES AND THE WORLD WILL BE TERRAFORMED – IT IS ALMOST made to the image and likeness of those machines, or democracies come on top – now they are on the bottom of the pyramid of capitalism, as humans have essentially no rights to credit – the language of power of society that creates the world – and then humans prevail. Yet for that to happen obviously democracies have to regain their power over capitalism by regaining their power over the language of social creation, money, which is now fully owned by those company-mothers; REGARDLESS OF THE PLACEBO newspeak of caring and political correctness that tell us the system work for the human kind.
For example, the goal of mercedes for its tiny group of stock-holders is the abstract reception of profits. But the real goal of the company is to build and evolve cars, today self-driving robocars, soon to have autonomous solar skins, and construct or convince politicians to construct the networks of energy and information, roads, GPS satellites, electric grids, and oil pipes to provide energy and information for those machines in a process that is obviously absorbing resources and space, from the other life species that need them. So today cars absorb 1/4th of the maize America reproduces, and no longer feeds humans and cattle, whose food prices rise.
And the land of many cities and territories become criss-crossed and barren to be used by machines.
What about human families? Our goals of existence as human families are obviously the same than those of company-mothers regarding their machines, but focused as it should be on our children.
So what we want is to have enough energy to feed them, enough information to educate them, and terraform the world to the image and likeness of human beings, to be able to roam the planet Gaia, enjoy life and its drive of existence, evolve socially in peace with other human beings and reproduce more children.
This is exactly what company-mothers of machines are doing so successfully, evolving, reproducing and integrating into planetary social networks its machines.
But humans are failing to achieve those goals for themselves. Why? There is no computer without energy, or proper internet connection to which the economic system dedicates billions of dollars. But most humans are undernourished and information is primitive at best, when there is information at all. There is no limit to the motion of machines on planet Earth a global free market for the reproduction, evolution and transfer of machines and money from companies, but humans are limited in motions by borders, in money by the lack of any rights to invent it, which companies have.
Can the reproductive units of human societies access the languages of social power, money ad the laws, to create a real, demand-based democracy, kicking the preproduction and consumption of life goods they need to survive, and investing in a world made to the image and likeness of human beings?
The obvious truth is NOT. As today the most segregated, underfunded, with less rights, clearly unjustly treated element of our societies is the human mother, which is – let us remember it, as it seems humans have forgotten – the origin of OUR life, the bearer of our species, the fundamental element that pegs together our families, ensures our survival and happiness. So this fact seems a bit of a contradiction with the notion that we live in a democracy, the government of the people.
Therefore the big question about our system is why Company-mothers are so successful achieving their goals of evolution, reproduction and terraforming of the Earth to the image and likeness of machines? And why human mothers are so miserable? Simply enough because we do NOT live in a world ruled and dedicated to human beings.
I shall repeat it ad nauseam to counter the opposite effect of repetition of happy newspeak of freedom and optimism by company-mothers of informative machines, aka mass-media: you DO not live in a free world, in a real democracy, as you DO not rule that world. Company-mothers do; since they are the only Free citizens of free markets, with full, free access to the two languages of power of our social organisms: the economic. reproductive language of money, that can buy and sell the lifetime of both human beings and machines; and the informative, nervous language of Laws that money systematically buy to ‘politicos’, which don’t have rights to issue money (deficit zero laws) and must extort citizens from it (taxation), while companies issue it for free in e-money derivatives and stocks.
The graph shows the consequence of this indifference of economists and its capitalist system to humanity: the ‘future’ head of machines, a mobile ear/camera/brain, which soon will be ‘attached’ to robocars and any moving camera, as a detached head, displacing all humans of labor and war fields, the iPhone is worth more than the living beings of 3 of the most populous nations of the world, still dominated by the pre-machine agricultural civilization. What this biased pricing in favor of machines tell us is that we humans are expendable and are being spent.
While in the side of humans a organization which IS submissive to the capitalist system, called Democracy, tries to make a world to its image and likeness, delivering the goods human mothers need to reproduce. And what people do NOT understand is that both mother SYSTEMS and species, and organizations are different, and while there are obvious symbiotic processes between them – as machines enhance our energy and information capacity, in most cases, SPECIALLY IN THE ROBOTIC AI AGE, when machines become autonomous species, competition is the rule of the game, and HUMANITY is loosing that competition.
Fact is the refusal to use the language of biology and organisms to talk of the industrial evolution of machines and its super organisms of re=production, company-mothers and tackle the issue of the darwinian competition between both species in labor and war field is by far the biggest intellectual blinder of mankind, with enormous consequences for our well-being and survival on this planet.
THIS FUTURE IS AVOIDABLE IF HUMANS WOULD EVOLVE THEIR SOCIAL SYSTEMS TO CONTROL AND MANAGE, FOR THE SAKE OF MAN, THE EVOLUTION OF MACHINES BUT THE OPPOSITE IS HAPPENING, because we are obsessed and ruled by ‘production economists’ working for those corporations whose only mantra is to increase the reproduction and evolution of machines to obtain higher profits of its sales. This fact coupled by the control of society by the culture of corporations with its monopoly in the issue of money settles the future in a single path: the metal-earth.
In graphs, 5 actions ensure the survival program of all scales of stientific species: above the actions of company-mothers of machines which adapt planet earth to its image and likeness. Below the individual actions of humans and below in scales of diminishing size the actions of molecules, atoms and forces. All of them respond to the same aeiou program of survival (accelerations, e-ntropy feeding, I-nformative gauging, o-ffspring reproduction and u-niversals-wholes creation which ensures all the parts of the being will keep its inner space-structure and outer time function.
The dual nature of machines: consumption and competition
Machines are both symbiotic and compete with man.
They do so in two ways: competing with us when they perform the same jobs we do, either as weapons or as tool-workers; and becoming symbiotic to us, when we consume them, either as “bodies of metal”, or as “heads of metal”. Its symbiosis make us addict to the higher energy and information they give to us. Its competition displaces us from fields of war and work. The tricky point is that those two functions of machines are opposite. The consumption of machines is positive. It improves our life.
The competition with machines is negative. It makes our life more difficult. So the big question is: What function is more powerful? The symbiotic function of consumption, or the competitive function of work? Unfortunately, the competitive function, given by the imitative form of machines.
The forms and functions of machines compete with men
It is interesting to notice that we lack any serious philosophy about machines, despite having so many books that describe how to make, reproduce, and work with machines. All descriptions of machines we have, are abstract descriptions. Yet machines are material species. Their non-abstract nature is evident. Just try to lift a heavy “abstract machine”, and let it fall on your foot. Suddenly the abstraction has become real. It has a form, a weight. We define that form in organic terms: A machine is a form that imitates a human organ of energy of information with atoms of metal.
Another abstract opinion about machines very common in America, is that machines do not have “will”, or “intelligence” which means in practical terms that they do not condition the behavior of people, or oblige us to act in a certain manner. This argument used mainly to dismiss any criticism against lethal machines is also vane, and does not recognize the cause of behavior in the Universe, which is communication of “potential will”, “suggestion of will”. Behavior is first suggested by communication, then reinforced by action. What this means is that a gun “suggests” his use, because his form is “per se” potentially intelligent, and suggests the act of killing. The mere presence of a gun, also suggests danger, and do communicate behavior. Military have known it throughout centuries. Their power is based in the capacity of weapons to suggest behavior on human beings.
Weapons are not abstract. Just press the trigger of a gun against you dog’s head. Look then to the results. Are you scandalized by my “abstract” suggestions? Why? Abstract things are suppose to produce abstract results… Yet machines are real, maybe even more real than human beings are if we just measure their destiny, weight, and size…
Further on, the will of machines, their biological drives to become re=produced, evolve and multiply, adapting their environment to its image and likeness is carried about by their ‘company-mothers’, the corporations that rule the world with money and bribed politicians. They express in their economical mandates the biological drives of machines. Their structure is similar to an ant-hill; and as they become more automated, moving towards infinite self-reproductivity they will embed in their digital programs of re=production, such biological will, till a moment in which neither company-mothers, nor robots with solar skins and A.I. will need humans during the II part of this century.
How should we define then properly machines? Any rigorous definition of an entity or being requires to explain, both its form in space and its function in time. Species exist in space, where they have a form, and in time where they perform a function. So do machines. Their form is an organic form. What is their function? As in the case of our weapon, machines have a clear function:To become organs of energy or information that interact with human beings. To imitate and substitute a human organ with a machine. For example a crane imitates an arm and substitutes an arm, moving things around. A phone imitates an ear-mouth, and works as an ear-mouth.
All machines imitate human functions. For that reason we talk of machines as “organic instruments”, that substitute human organic systems. If we divide the human being in two clear components, body and head, we can talk of two types of machines, body-machines that imitate and substitute functions of body organs, and mind-machines that imitate functions of the brain-senses. Those two basic functions of human organs will determine also the form of the machine, which imitates the equivalent form of a human organ. Cameras look like eyes and cranes like arms. If we were to use less “biological terms”, we will say there are:
– Machines of information [brain machines] and
– Machines of energy [body machines].
Which become complete “organic species”, when they are merged into
– Robots, metalife.
Men evolve and catalyze the reproduction of metal
Yet if machines and humans have the same form and function? Why we insist that machines can be potentially superior to man? Why in fact top predator machines –weapons– kill top predator humans -soldiers- and machine workers displace human workers constantly in most company-mothers? The reason is that there is a clear difference between machines and human organs. Machines are made basically of metal. Humans are made of carbon and related atoms.
Today we realize that the properties of metal, force us to certain informative and energetic designs in machines. It is metal and the laws of the Universe, not man, which makes machines efficient organs of energy and information. Men only create machines. Humans act only as “catalyzers”, “workers”, that assemble metal into organic forms, similar to us.
The laws of the Universe and the properties of metal enable them to exist. We conclude that machines are, from a biological point of view, metal species. Metal is a natural substance which is able to be formed into different kinds of “organic systems”, that copy the organic shapes of man.
This “transfers” millions of years of evolutionary knowledge accumulated by human forms, into machines, made of a stronger, more complex substance. In this manner the only advantage of man -formal evolution- is lost, to the new species, which competes and preys over human beings, provoking the relentless extinction of nature and history, and the expansion of the metal-ecosystem – the true meaning of the Industrial R=evolution, carried about by company-mothers, which have terraformed the Earth to the image and likeness of its off-spring, in a series of cycles described by evolutionary economics:
Thus a key law of systems science tells us that more complex informative systems are faster and smaller in the logarithmic scale of time. So their cycles run faster. I.e. chips run faster and are more complex the smaller they are; black holes attract faster than bigger, less dense, informative stars; insects think 10 times faster than larger mammals; genetic systems are smaller but code larger systems because they have more information and so on.
In the graph there is an 800 year cycle of simpler civilisations, closely attached to climatic 800 year cycles that multiplied the nomadic waves of weapon makers, who felt upon agricultural civilisations killing them.
Then there is an 80 year accelerated cycle started by the professionalisation of research in weapons in 1600, in the middle of the gunpowder wave, when Galileo founded ballistics, the first company of gunboats and slave cargo, VOC and the stock market was founded in Amsterdam, starting the wave of 70-80 years national power:
The Evolution Of Economics: From Verbal To Digital Myths
It is clear that the bio-economical system of machines has been created by those animetal cultures who have profited most from their symbiosis with weapons, and money, the informative language that promotes metal-species over all other species. “The cultures of Animetals”; the cultures of gold and iron, the Semitic and Germanic cultures that have carried the evolution of weapons and money, first in the Middle East, and in Modern Times in Europe and America.
In that sense Economics started not as a science but as a metal-religion.
We use a word for such ideologies “go[l]d Religions”, the concept that Gold=God. That Gold is either God or a gift of God. Corrupted Judaism (we shall call it Aaronism) with its myth of the Golden calf, Calvinism, and Anglicanism based in Calvin postulates (Calvin said money was the intelligence of God), are such religions. No wonder that 90% of the great “Economists” that founded the economic “science”, belonged to those previous Gold religions…
The difference between an objective science and a subjective cultural ideology is clear. A science does not promote anything, but merely describes reality. A subjective ideology such as Economics favor a species [metal] with subjective truths disguised as postulates, as “absolute truths”. Nazism is a German culture that promotes the superiority of the German race as an absolute truth. So does Judaism or Calvinism which considers those who believe their dogmas to be “chosen of God”. They are “racial ideologies” which disguise their racism as a dogma, an absolute truth. The same goes for Economics, the racial ideology of metal-species, whose absolute truth is the goodness of machines and money, which Economics promote over all other species.
We distinguish two ages of such Economical myths, according to the two linguistic ages of history, the verbal age of Go[l]d Religions and the digital age of Economical thought. The age of verbal, myths of religious origin, gave birth to Go[l]d cultures such as Aaronism (main branch of Judaism) and Calvinism=Anglicanism (main branch of Protestantism).
Go[l]d myths helped the members of such cultures to promote money and machines, since religious myths told them that Gold was the intelligence of God. An accumulation of Gold and its symbiotic machines (mv=tp) was God’s will. However, within those same cultures, the evolution of machines by scientists, end up causing the substitution of verbal languages of power (laws, religions) by digital languages of power (engineering, science, money). So the myths of Gold religions were translated to mathematics by economists. New myths of a mathematical nature were created to sustain the same goal of reproduction of machines and money, now translated into digital sentences. The myth of the supremacy of mathematics over verbal thought, and metal-senses over human senses became a dogma, the scientific method, that favored metal-sensorial machines, called scientific instruments. Finally the mandate of reproducing machines and money was translated digitally, into the “Smith equation”: Max. Mv = Max. Tp = GDP (the growth of money and top predator machines of highest price – weapons and informative machines is the meaning of wealth).
The growth of machines and money is the wealth of nations, its Gross national product. So all nations dedicated their efforts to evolve money and those species of maximum monetary value(weapons, and machines). First applied to England, it implied the massive reproduction of gunboats, and railroads, while people died of hunger in Ireland, and English people suffered such degree of poverty that they were called “white slaves”.
We live in the age of digital myths, of science and companies that have translated the “goodness of machines and products” into modern equations. We live in the Anglo-Saxon present, a world-wide, economically-determined culture. Economics are a part of that Go[l]d culture. Adam Smith (Calvinist), Say (Calvinist), Malthus (Anglican), Ricardo (Jewish), Marx (Jewish), Keynes (British) all the fathers of Economics belong to Go[l]d cultures. They merely transferred to Mathematics the religious postulates of their cultures, with a single message: “The reproduction of machines is good for humankind, it is the meaning of progress”. “Money is good because it is the invisible hand of God”.
If only it were that simple. Unfortunately Economics prefer its own jargon, its own laws, and abstractions, its own religious postulates, and so it gets nowhere, because it denies what all other sciences know and use: the universal laws of biological species. Laws that apply to eco[nomic]systems too. Neither economists, who aim to reproduce machines, and scientists, who evolve them, are able to look at themselves objectively, as part of human history, where they play a role far less beneficial to man that they suppose. The role of economics and science is neither knowledge, nor wealth per se, but the evolution and reproduction of machines, that later and only partially brings wealth and knowledge to humankind.
A free, truly intelligent mankind would maintain the equation of evolution of earth Gaia<history>mechanocene, in the relative state of present, making history immortal and in balance between the life-past that ‘sustains’ us as carbon life beings, and the future of Machines that empower us, giving added energy and information, but also compete with us in labor and war fields, often making us obsolete.
Hence instead of despising Gaia and worshipping the Financial-Media (informative machines) Military-Industrial system thinking ‘their future evolution is our future’, because indeed virtual screens and its stockrats, owners of Media corporations tell us only the biased point of view of the machine, as ‘believers in fetish go(l)d religions of profits’, NOT because reality and science tells us so. On the contrary evolution, biology, systems sciences, artists and human ethic writers all understand we are going under, but the censored media has already become a global network manufacturing our brains – the new nervous system that controls all human minds; while corporations have embedded in its equations our no-future. And of course the don’t worry be happy orwellian newspeaks make us caring for all the wrong causes. Consider indeed the ‘good people”s believe that we do need solar energy, the mantra of these days. What is really behind it? Well exactly the opposite: we should forbid research in solar energy, because warming only will liberate siberian and canadian huge tracts of land for wheat, and make us sunny days, but solar IS the nail in the coffin as it will make all machines with A.I. autonomous of man:
On the other side we observe the political zeitgeist. The founders of capitalism an owners of the Financial-media system are considered ‘sacred victims’ of mankind and his apartheid state, the ‘center of all sacred primitive cults’ and his 50 years campaign of hate media against its rival religion, the right think to do, because those neolithic cultures are ‘evil’; and of course after brutalising them for 50 years with profitable neo-colonial wars, now they are evil and are killing us, but the solution is NOT education, welfare, investment in the third world, democracy, but the building of a global police state of higher profits.
WHY? Because the bottom line is the world is already ruled by machines and its company-mothers and the most profitable machines, have always been weapons, and the highest profits of capitalism in war, where humans are consumed.
So you already live in an orwellian world which is exactly the opposite of what it seems:
If we were NOT manufactured collectively by metal-communicators, we should realise we humans are all a single species, and to survive we must maintain a balance, between Gaia, History and the metal-earth by pruning the tree of metal-technology of its lethal goods, NOT evolving further weapons, beyond the limits of survival of entropy and limiting hate-media, the dominant information of mankind today.
Since Gaia cannot survive the evolution of Nuclear weapons and military robots.
Yet nothing of this is even discussed today in politics, dedicated to hate neolithic cultures brutalising them and letting them run amok:
Why indeed have we left ISIS breed and make a media circus of its terrorists but have billions of $ invested in ‘sissy soldiers’ which we do not send to eliminate his rag-tag army? How cynical are our politicos? Answer – they are in the third age of war, as the economic system switches between both states, every generation:
But of course all this will sound a mixture of science-fiction, anti system rants (unaware in fact I was at the turn of the century, the leading scientist of systems in this blue dot) and so I will stop here the story-telling of zeitgeist and if you are still reading, go far deeper into the organic systemic laws of the Universe, so you know what is all about before knowing what is history about.
MECHANISM VS. ORGANICISM:
THE ORGANIC PARADIGM.
The 4th paradigm of knowledge. The organic whys of the Universe.
A deeper explanation of this work considers the meaning of knowledge and what questions it must answer to exhaust the study of a certain subject. In journalism we ask what, who, how, when and why.
The evolution of science implies big shifts in the paradigms, languages and philosophical dogmas we use to understand the Universe. In the evolution of science we observed first ‘what’ (fact and experience) and then asked ‘who’. It was the mythic age of science, the first paradigm of knowledge – when an anthropomorphic being, often a god was the cause of all events.
Then the Greeks used reason to ask the ‘what’ (experience) and ‘how’ of things, its causes and consequences. It was the 2nd paradigm of knowledge: logic thought.
The 3rd paradigm started by Galileo with his use of machines (clocks and telescopes), responded to when, measuring space distances and time frequencies in great detail with a single space-time system. The tics of the heart, the stomach, the moon, the atom and the clock are different, but to measure them we needed a unit of time and so we equalized all rhythms with a clock, and to compare the spatial trajectories of those cycles we needed a ‘background of space’, so we put together all the broken spaces of reality into a joined puzzle, which we called Cartesian space-time. The error of a single space-time came when we forgot those simplifications and considered that the abstract space-time continuum of Descartes used to measure all other spaces and times was the real space-time.
The culmination of this process of mechanical measure came with quantum theory, which refined the measures of the cyclical trajectories of particles in the microscopic world and General Relativity, which refined them in the cosmological realm by correcting the deformations of those rhythms of time and distances of space caused by the limits of speed of our light-based Universe.
In philosophical terms, the paradigm of measure meant the birth of mechanism, the fundamental philosophy of our world today: the machine – no longer man, an organism – became the ‘measure of all things’. This was a simplification, as today we realize that machines merely imitate our organs of energy and information with networks of metal-atoms (so a crane is an energetic arm of metal and a chip an informative brain of metal), which now we fusion into ‘organic’ robots. And so the change of paradigm from the Greek, Aristotelian and Asian tradition of organicism to mechanism is only a hiatus on a richer, more complex understanding of the whys of the Universe.
Mechanism changed also the language of understanding of the Universe, from Aristotelian Logic to mathematical Platonism, since mathematics was the language used by machines to measure the Universe of time and space with clocks and telescopes; while logic was the language embedded in the syntax of words, which measure time with causal verbs that describe the logic relationships between its 3 dimensions of past, present and future. So in terms of philosophy of science, mechanism meant a pendulum law that changed the paradigm from Aristotle (organic, temporal causality) to Plato (mechanical, spatial geometry). This was a wrong choice, because a truly inclusive theory of reality has to put together both languages and approaches as we shall do in this work: the geometric how & instrumental when matched by a temporal why, which must be by definition a causal, temporal process. The 3rd paradigm obsessed by spatial measure was not very kin of such inquire, as Feynman famously put it: ‘the why is the only thing a physicist never asks’. And yet the why has always been a fundamental question of knowledge.
That why should respond to the existence of a program of creation, evolution and extinction of the reality we see all around us, which always gives birth and extinguishes the same entities, repeating their forms once and again. What is the purpose of the Universe and all its repeated parts? Why they have those forms and follow always a life and death cycle? Thus, scientists, not satisfied with the limits of the 3rd paradigm of measure kept asking the why, which could not be a personal God (the who of the 1st paradigm), neither the machine, the instrument of measure of the 3rd paradigm (‘God is a clocker’ said Kepler, because he used clocks to measure it and ‘God speaks mathematics’ said Galileo, because those machines translated the events of the Universe into mathematical data).
According to Deism the whys of existence are due to a personal being, external to the Universe that makes it all happen and cares for humans more than for the rest of His work. According to Mechanism, this is due to the self-similarity between the Universe and the primitive machines we humans construct to observe it. Mechanism though needs ‘someone’ to make the machine, which is not self-generated; so it is similar to deism, reason why the founding fathers of science, all pious believers, adopted it as a proof of the existence of God, which had given man self-similar properties – the capacity to make machines to the image and likeness of the Universe. The problem with those 2 approaches, which in fact are the same is obvious: a personal God is an anthropomorphic, subjective myth and science must be objective; while a mechanical view of the Universe still needs an internal, self-sustained process of growth, creation and synchronization caused by an external God that made and rewinds the clock – as Leibniz clearly stated in his critique of Newton(‘Letters to Clarke’). Scientists today are unaware that mechanist theories are in fact deist theories, reason why Kepler and Newton, pious believers, liked them; since they were a metaphor of their self-centered, anthropomorphic religious beliefs: If man created machines because we were made to the image and likeness of God, God had created the ultimate machine, the Universe.
Such theories cannot satisfy the rational, objective, self-sufficient nature of science, as they require external myths to work. This leaves us only with a 3rd objective, scientific possibility, organicism – a more complex theory that comes of age in this work: if the why is neither God nor the machine, there is only a 3rd option in between – the organism, which is an intermediate concept; since an organism is self-sufficient as God is, yet it is part of Nature as the machine is.
So what systems sciences does, is to bring about a more scientific paradigm, in which everything becomes organic; and so God is not required to build an immortal Universe as in Mechanism. Why people who pretend to be ‘scientists’ still defend mechanism has to do with tradition (the Baconian Idols of the tribe of physics, who initiated modern science without abandoning their biblical beliefs) and with power (machines control the world in our technological civilization – they are the new Gods of mankind; and so they are the ‘role models’ for our philosophy of science – more than with objective scientific epistemology that can only accept as a rational self-contained theory, organicism.
I. MECHANISM & SCIENTIFIC RACISM
DENIAL OF HUMAN SENSES AND LANGUAGES OF KNOWLEDGE.
‘Technological civilization is programmed by the principle that something ought to be done because it is technologically possible. If it is possible to build nuclear weapons, they must be built, even If they might destroy us all. Once this principle is accepted, humanist Values (something has to be done because it is needed by man) are Dethroned and technological development becomes the foundation of ethics’.
Eric Fromm, father of political psychology
RECAP. The most insidious truth about a future that MUST BE BY DECREE made of aching, is the idea that machines are superior to human organisms and as such we must renounce to what makes us humans, our senses, and words that measure time and space from our organic, vital point of view, and regulate our life, time and space with mechanisms of measure, telescopes and clocks, whose evolution will reveal the ultimate truths of the Universe that must be expressed in the digital language of machines.
The religion of technology called mechanism MUST however be differentiated from the true meaning of science which is knowledge and can be expressed in all the languages of the Universe. To fully grasp this you should upgrade your paradigm of science to the organic fractal 5D Universe. Here we study that duality from the historic, human perspective.
Scientific method, a dogma=ideology that evolves machines
The purpose of science should be the pursuit of knowledge, and the understanding of the Main Laws that rule the universe, without any dogmatic limits except the harm that knowledge might cause to mankind. This self-evident definition of a positive science, which many scientists would subscribe, however does not guide today the practical world of modern science.
We are neither advancing in our search for the general principles that define the Universe – a Unifying Theory able to explain the nature of Reality, beyond the detailed descriptions provided by our instruments – nor we are limiting the harmful side effects of many discoveries of science in human societies, from weapons to pollution to mass extinctions caused by the machines invented by science.
Why? Is it because we as human beings are limited by our intelligence to understand those principles; and doomed to destroy ourselves given our innate ignorance? Or because we are using an incorrect approach to knowledge and guided by errors of thought, we are pushing irresponsible policies that could be avoided? As Aristotle and others before me, I believe the principles that rule the Universe are simple enough for mankind to understand them and, guided by those principles, manage properly this small planet. Yet if we are guided by misleading ideas on the nature of those Universal Laws, we will never be able to apply them to the common good. In a sense as Socrates said, intelligence and goodness are related, as those who truly understand the workings of the Universe, respect the Universe and take care of it in a proper way.
So the problem of searching for a Unifying Theory, that explains the Universe, seems more a question of wrong methods of knowledge than of a limited human intelligence. Plainly speaking, Modern science constricted by the scientific method and its mathematical limits is not suit to find a Unifying Theory of reality. Since mathematics, a spatial language based in geometry, mainly provide spatial descriptions of reality. Thus they can only at best unify those spatial properties, in search of the ultimate force/s and particle/s origin of all the other spatial particles/forces of the Universe.
There is however a second defect of the Scientific Method that goes beyond knowledge, into the realm of history and human survival: its despise for human senses, and natural languages (words), and reliance in sensorial machines, and the languages they use to measure reality – digital numbers.
This reliance on machines and numbers to understand reality is perhaps the biggest myth of science – the myth of the scientific method, the idea that we need machines to understand the Universe of space, and time, since those machines are superior to our human senses, eyes and words that also perceive space and time. The result of that myth is that scientists become evolutors of machines, instead of searchers of human knowledge with human senses, a role left to artists and writers. Science in this manner becomes theoretical technology. First we discover machines of science, and only then we inquire about the Universe we them.
Indeed I affirm that the main reason why scientists exist is not to evolve human knowledge -even if many scientists wish to do that- but to evolve sensorial machines, mental machines . In fact the discovery of those mental machines caused science. Indeed, clocks and telescopes able to measure time and space in “metallic terms” arrived just before science kicked off.
That hard true is covered with the myth of the “experimental method”, confused with the “scientific method”. The experimental method is very old. It was invented by the Greeks, and it might say is natural to man. Yet science was born a few years after the first metal-eye, the telescope was discovered, and the first accurate clock, the pendulum clock, manufactured. So it was the first metal-eye, the telescope, and the first metal-brain, the clock, who invented modern science. The Greeks did not have them. So despite having a much better understanding of the basis of the experimental, deductive, and logic methods of human knowledge, that XVII C. Europeans, they did not found science.
Sensorial machines are indeed the key element of science, not the scientists that use them. The telescope, “the first primitive metal-eye” was discovered just before Galileo invented his method of “perception of truth” with telescopes. The pendulum clock, “the first primitive metal-brain”, able to measure time with higher precision than human words do, was perfected by Galileo himself. I would call in that sense Galileo, an artisan of metal, that used to enhance his knowledge the artifacts he constructed:
Metal-minds are organs that gather information from the perspective of machines. They are parallel species to the mental species that man possess, not superior, but just another species of heads, with the components of all heads:
– Radio Ears, and telephone ears, imitate the hearing functions of man.
– TV eyes, and cameras imitate the visual functions of man.
– Computers, and networks, imitate the individual and social brains of man..
In the next graph, the scientific method from a biological point of view, is merely the process of substitution of human sensorial evidence, by metal snsorial evidence. A better system of perception – The telescope-digital clock of Galilee- is used now to measure sace and time, instead of the biological systems of human perception (the eye and de word). Yet since metal-species are potentially more perfect that carbolife species, we prefer metal-sensorial truth-evidence, In this manner man renounces to his subjective senses, and becomes slave of the evidence of metal-senses, slave of thecnological truths. Science and technology are not abstract concepts, but very real species, that substitute and cause the obsolescence of Human Words and Eyes, replaced by themetal eye-brain system and their digital perception of space-time. In this manner metal-eyes and metal-brains become the new informative top predators of the Earth:
Science as understood since 1600s, when the same year appeared Galileo’s treatise of ballistics, as the chief of the Arsenal of Venice, In Amsterdam the arsenal became professionalized with the first company VOC dedicated to construct weapons, gunboats and military instruments. And in Spain, the last verbal empire, copycat of ROME, intellectuals admitted defeat and published the first fiction novel, quixot.
So from the experimental method of Aristotle which admitted all languages as long as experience and data was right, we moved to the scientific method of galileo which denies verbal theories, and so we installed the present evolutionary system of metal-species, with synergies between the company-mothers of machines, the new religion of go(l)d and mechanisms (biblical protestant sects) and the scientific method of knowledge through mechanical measure.
In this new brave world, wor(l)ds are deemed inaccurate and so only useful for fictions, and go(l)d, a digital language can buy words. So now selection happens no longer as in previous global ecosystems, based in verbal thought (history selects on top rightful ethic politicians and religious leaders of social love), or in eye-vision (selecting the top predator felines) but the digital language now will select machines evolving in digital languages and discharge humans of lesser mathematical skills, specially those cultures oriented to sensorial human senses (black, mediterranean, south-asian cultures):
And as the top predator language is mathematics that substitutes Word information, it starts a selection of the species that speak better the language, which are NOT human species but machines. Technological Science does not evolve either life or human beings, but metalspecies. Companies and Science are not about human knowledge and evolution, but about metal evolution. Why? Since according to the scientific method, without metal-informative senses (clocks, cameras) by definition we cannot find a scientific truth. Indeed, a scientific truth measures time and space changes in a given species. Yet Time and Space have in science a narrow, “metallic” definition:
Time is defined as what a clock measures and Space is defined as what a microscope or Telescope sees. So the sensorial truth of metal senses becomes synonymous in science, of “Human Truth”. The evolution of metal-senses becomes the a priori condition for any kind of scientific knowledge: you evolve metal senses, you measure time with metal-brains, with clocks (today evolved into computers) and you measure space with metal-eyes, with telescopes (today evolved into cameras); and you call that truth “science”, “knowledge”. Even if “truth”, science and knowledge about space and time, can be measured with many other senses, and perceptive languages. This is indeed the error of science: to confuse a certain truth and perception (metal-perception) with the absolute truth and perception. That arrogant view is the simple ideology of science which evolves metal-minds. Truth is what metal minds see and measure. So the search for truth implies the search for better, evolved metal minds. The a priori goal of science becomes then evolution of machines. The ideology of science becomes the search for metal- truths:
Scientific truth = metal-sensorial evidence (clock-camera measure)
Truth = Metal-sensorial evidence = Evolution of metal-species
The metalminds of science replace the very essence of human minds, the virtual world of information we trace with eyes and words in our brain, now by the companies-designed virtual world of values that TVs program in us.
We conclude that the scientific method of “total metal-sensorial evidence”, and all the statements of science in that path, are pure, naive, arrogance of which scientists are so often guilty, mesmerized by the perceptive power of their “metal-senses”, telescopes, cameras and computers. One of the fathers of science, Kepler wrote in his book: “I am writing a book to be read either now or in posterity, it matters not. It can wait a century for a reader, as God Himself has waited 6,000 years for a witness”. Yet the witness was not Kepler, self-appointed, as the only intelligence comparable to that of God=the Universe, but the metal-senses of Kepler, his clock and telescope. Still, those powerful perceptive instruments were just two of the many linguistic detectors that the Universe hosts.
Function is form. The function of scientists is to evolve machines and weapons. The forms they create are machines and weapons. To break the slavery of science to metal, human verbal logic, Theory of Evolution, has to be regarded as the guide of all forms of research.
So digital science has to be denied. Scientists have to become human thinkers and understand the universe in verbal terms. Otherwise they will extinguish us, while in a loop of unconscious cynicism, keep telling us that technology and computers is human progress… not metal progress.
The arrogance of science is to despise human senses, and substitute them for the senses of metal-species. Human verbal knowledge is our knowledge, maybe worse than metal-sensorial knowledge but ours. It will never betray us. Words are the subjective human perception of the Universe. While science is the metal-sensorial perception of the Universe, through cameras and Metal-minds. It is only better in detail but men do not need such “detail” of information. What men need is accurate information that could help humans to survive.
The evolution of knowledge is evolution of the languages of the mind
To understand such new approach to science, we have to clarify once and for all what is really human nowledge. Knowledge obviously is the accumulation of information about reality with the human mind. What is then the human mind? Here is when an objective analysis brings a rather simple, yet enlightening answer: your mind is an organic system that processes languages of perception. Those languages of perception are basically two: sight and sounds, from where two languages of knowledge derivative, numbers and words. What do numbers and words, eyes and sounds perceive. Eyes and numbers perceive space. Verbal words and sounds perceive time. Words are verbal constructions that talk about events in time. mathematics are geometrical games that explain events in space. So we come to the conclusion that the human mind is a “being that exists in space and time” and so it perceives space and time.
You are a mind that perceives time and space. That is the nature of your existence. You perceive time with words, with verbs. You perceive space with eyes, with images. That is your connection to reality. The evolution of the human mind, of our words of comprehension of time, and our perception of images (either thorough art, or mathematics), is the very essence of knowledge.
So to know, is to develop the two languages of the human mind, words and mathematics, and the comprehension they bring us of the events of time, and the forms of space… Once this is clear it is easy to understand knowledge and science as an process of evolution of human languages, and the information we collect with those languages.
The 2 Ages of Science. The 2 ages of knowledge
History does not evolve human bodies, but human languages. This is evident. Our species exists as such since perhaps 150.000 years, since the arrival of verbal languages, without real changes of morphology. It is then verbal and mathematical knowledge, the virtual worlds and the mind of man what evolves in history.
Thus, we talk of 2 ages of human knowledge, according to the evolution and predominance of the different languages of the human mind.
– The verbal age of knowledge, represented by Taoism, Buddhism, philosophy and religion. It is the age of perception of time, with words an verbs, with “3 dimensions”; past, present and future.
– The mathematical age of the scientific method, started in ±1602. humans changed the perception of space and time, no longer observed with words, but with clocks, and numbers.
Yet in both ages man has tried to answer the natural questions perceived by the mind and its languages: what is time and space, what are the nature of the changes, creations and extinctions that take place in that Universe?
The age of words
In the age of words, man tries to explain the changes that take place in space and time, using names (which design beings that exist in space) and verbs (which design actions that take place in time between beings of space, using past, present, and future verbs). The result is the existence of a certain “Universal grammar”, or “verbal syntax” common to most verbal expressions: Name (subject) verb Name (object).
That verbal syntax basically says that all events in the Universe relate two species or forms of space, through processes of communication that takes place in time. It also says that man (the subject) is the center of all those sentences, the actor of the verb, and hence it is the center of the Universe.
Verbal syntax is anthropomorphic. The minute you say a sentence you will probably say “I did that”, and you will become the center of the Universe. Still we know this is false. We know we are not the center of the Universe. So we talk of the first age of verbal science, as an age of anthropomorphic knowledge, in which man is the subject of all things, and the word is the only language of truth. Today this concept of reality still lingers in western verbal religions. However as time went by, such simple idea of the Universe, derived of the “biological syntax” of words, evolved into concepts more akin to the experimental reality of the Universe.
The same happened among the “verbal scientists” of the Eastern World. We might call it the “objective, or relativistic school of thought”, as opposed to the “subjective or absolutist school of western thought”. The culmination of such verbal school of science took place in a brief period between the VI and IV centuries before Christ (Christ himself can be considered the fundamental philosopher of the subjective vision of the Universe, with men-God as the center of all things). It gave us the work of a series of verbal genius in Greece and Asia -Lao-Tse, Buddha, Aristotle, Plato- which developed a verbal cosmology, coherent with the perceived nature of Change in the Universe of space-time beings. They answered our fundamental question: the causes and nature of the creation, evolution and destruction of space-time beings.
To understand their answer we might have to clarify some words which are synonymous, since those philosophers in general used instead of the modern, scientific concepts of space and time, two different concepts that talked of the same, the concepts of a Universe of space, and a God that ruled the changes, the times of beings…
What is God and what is the Universe
God, and the Universe are the two great mysteries, the two great macrocosms about which man has always inquired. It is possible to know God and the Universe, as the great thinkers of the verbal age, from Aristotle to Buddha thought? I believe it is possible. However before trying to answer that question properly we have to define what most people mean with those words. Since there are several definitions of God and the Universe, we better agree on what is the field of our inquire according to the opinion of most people…
By the Universe most men understand the reality we perceive through our eyes, the spatial reality. The Universe is “all what exists”. By God most men understand the intelligence of that Universe. Which manifests itself, through the changes that take place in the Universe. God is for Greek philosophers the Logos of the Universe, the laws that cause the constant change of reality. It is the Tao of Change in Chinese words. God is the Creator, and Cause of the lives and deaths (the changes) of the Universe in Western Religions.
The concept of God turns out to be similar. It is always the same idea of an intelligence that causes changes. The Eastern man, and the scientist, think the creator is inside reality. Western religions think the creator is outside reality. But for both cultures God is the cause, the logic of change. The expression “Laws of Change” is a synonymous of the “Thoughts of God”. Those Thoughts of God are the subject of our inquire… Indeed, since all those concepts of God are synonymous of change we have found the right question to inquire the nature of God: “change”. What causes change? What are the laws of change? Can we control those laws; can we influence God? Those are the questions of this book.
Change happens in Time, the Universe happens in Space
Can we relate the philosophical idea of change-God to a “real” concept within the reach of human understanding? We can. Since Change takes place in Time, we could say that God is the master of time. The Laws of Change are the Laws of Time. If the Universe is a physical, spatial reality, God and His Laws are a temporal, logical form. We could say that the Universe is about Space; and God is about Time. Because reality exists in Space; and change exists in Time.
Thus we have created a bridge between the abstract concepts of God and the Universe, and the scientific concepts of Time=Change and Space=Reality. It is basically the same bridge, earlier Taoists and Buddhists created many centuries ago. They said that God is Time, is change. That the logic of God, was the cause of change in the species of reality, in the spatial beings of the Universe.
Those laws of change were explained in simple terms by Taoists and Buddhists using two terms, yin and yang, that are quite equivalent to the modern terms of information and energy. The species of the Universe shared and transformed energy and information. The way they shared and transformed that energy and information followed certain rules, which were the rules of change, the logic of God.
As we go along the pages of this book we will see that essentially such ideas are right. The Universe is a game of communication of two substances that we will call spatial energy and temporal information. The sum of all those spatial energies and temporal informations are the Total Universe. However we only perceive of that total Universe a part of the absolute spatial energy and temporal information the total Universe stores…
Where is the rest of that spatial energy and temporal information? The answer is: “beyond our perception, in parallel Universes perceived with other forces such as gravitation”. This conclusion reached by modern science in the last years, through the language of mathematics, is the best explanation we have found to Reality. Curiously enough was also the explanation reached with verbal languages, by the scientists of the age of words…
Indeed, Eastern philosophers considered that knowledge was relative to perception, and human perception was limited by our understanding of spatial energy (yang), and temporal information (yin), with two basic languages, sight and words… Therefore we cannot know the Total Universe in itself, but we can only perceive through the interposed “screen” of languages, an image, or representation of the Universe. In the same manner that a mirror is not the being in itself, but only a part of the information the being stores, the senses and languages of man do not perceive the absolute truth, but only a part of it.
Man perceives with his eyes space, and with his verbs time, but – affirmed Taoist and Buddhist philosophers – there exist many other intelligent beings in the Universe, that perceive reality with other languages (smells, other colors, magnetic forces, gravitational forces, chemical impulses, etc.). The Chinese even invented an entire branch of medicine that worked, based in the concept that your body has an underlying structure perhaps of magnetic nature, like a scheme of your body, that we cannot perceive, but we can influence with metal-needles…
In search of an indirect method of truthness
Today, the last advances of morphological sciences give reason to the chinese. There are multiple processes of growth which are not “random” but followed certain mathematical structures common to magnetic and gravitational fields, called “spirals”, and “cardioids”.
And so, you grow according to a common gravitational and magnetic deformation of space-time called a spiral and a cardioid. When we apply to a child’s head a mathematical tool called a “cardioid transformation”, your head grows to adquire the form of an adult. Is it that growth ruled by the necessary growth of the magnetic-gravitational blue-print, which underlies your bone-structure? Since we do not perceive gravitation, only indirect proves can answer that question. This might trouble “classic scientists” that as “antropomorphic religions” do not want to limit the fantasy that man can perceive it all and know it all with absolute certainty. Yet it is necessary to accept that we exist in a virtual world, creation of the mind which is not necessarily the total Universe, or even the world that other sensorial species perceive.
The Universe is a “linguistic representation” of words and images, as the Universe a computer perceives is a linguistic representation of numbers and the Universe of a dog, a representation of smells, and images… A tree has a chemical map of the Universe, a star has perhaps a gravitational mind (for Eastern people celestial bodies were living beings, hence their development of astrology), a man a visual and verbal mind…
So the big question is: how can we study the logic of change, that guides the actions and changes of all those beings? Again Eastern philosophers came with what it seems the right answer: since we know the “logic of change”, the effects of Time in Space, for a lot of species, and all those species, when analyzed in depth, follow certain basic ruled laid down by those philosophers, it is logic to affirm that all other species not-perceived by our senses will follow the same rules.
This is in essence the way science works. You boil water with heat one thousand times, and it is the same process, so you “extrapolate” a law: “heat boils water”.
Eastern philosophers said: “the changes of space, the changes of all beings we perceive, follow the rules of yang-spatial energy, and yin-temporal information”. So those laws should also rule the species, and dimensions of space-time we do not perceive. Thus, those rules are the laws of God, the Total Change, the Laws of the Universe, the Total Space. They had found what we might call the “homologic”, or “analogic”, or “biologic” method of knowledge. Since those rules were based in homologies, analogies, and further on, as described by Eastern scientists, were rules common to living and non-living species…
The isomorphic, homologic, organic Universe.
Eastern philosophers accepted a biologic Universe, a living Universe, where beings with different minds see “parallel Universes”, virtual mas of reality, logic models, mirrors of reality, which helped them to act and survive in the Universe. When this became evident to the Hindi and Chinese philosophers, the great masters of those two cultures, Lao-Tse, and Buddha, established certain bio-logic rules of behavior in that Living Universe.
In modern terms, we could say that Chinese discovered the laws of transformation of energy into information, and viceversa. For example they afirmed:
“Energy (spatial yang) never dies, but constantly transforms itself into temporal information (yin)”.
“The transformation of energy into information follows 3 morphological “horizons” or “ages”, which takes place in all species of space-time”.
“All Universal systems need a minimal quantity of both components, to exist, a “body of energy”, and a “mind of information”. And so on…
Those laws that merged biological and physical concepts about time, space, energy, information, life, and death, existence and extinction… They were simple, based in a few observations (the Asians had not complex instruments of science). Yet perhaps because of their simplicity, they were truly generic; they could apply to all Universal beings, and so they could be rightly considered as fundamental laws of God and the Universe, of the way Time changes the spatial reality. They have inspired my research. As I went along discovering those laws, out of my knowledge of science and my analysis of multiple space-times, I found them also in Eastern religions. Which confirmed me I was in the right path, since people from another age, and culture had found the same concepts, observing the Universe and God…
Regarding the laws of behavior in that Universe, the Asians also laid down simple, effective laws to enhance the survival of humankind. Buddha insisted that men should kill only those species it required to feed on, since all beings had a soul-mind, all species had a virtual image of the Universe, and therefore were living beings. It was the biological law of action-reaction: if you gave a bad “karma” (bad energy or information) to another being, the other being to balance the total Universe, would send you the same bad karma (bad energy and information) that could destroy you. If we respected the life of those beings, those beings would respect us. Such Universal law of behavior was the key to survive in the Universe… Lao-Tse also came to the conclusion that men should be careful with the way it interfered in the natural processes of life and death, since the forces at work “the logic laws of change”, the laws of God, were too powerful and we men should merely strive to understand them, and rule our lives according to them.
So we have to conclude that the verbal age of science, reached coherent and efficient answers to the great questions of mankind. It explained the Universe as a game of spatial and temporal parameters. It understood the existence of many “dimensions” in that Universe beyond our world of light. It developed an ethic vision of our role in the Universe according to his nature. When applied correctly it created human societies armonic with nature, and those Universal laws of change. The aim of those societies was to survive, to repeat its “cycles of existence”, and control to the benefit of man the process of change. The Chinese were specially successful at that; and we can justly said they managed to keep their society unchanged, healthy and growing longer than any other human society ever.
I consider that through those Eastern philosophies, in the golden age of the scientific word, which has its summit in earlier Taoist and Buddhist thought, men evolved mentally, and matured on its verbal perception of the Universe, from a simple age of language, of subjective, syntactic, anthropomorphic, dogmatic, nature, to an age of complex language, of objective, semantic, universal, relativistic nature.
Even the verbal and visual-mathematical language was put in perspective as a mere instrument of human subjective knowledge, unable to give us the absolute truth-information of the Universe. If absolute truth was impossible, what was then the purpose of knowledge? Obviously not a theoretical, dogmatic purpose, but a rather pragmatical reason:
To help the probabilities of human survival, by guiding our acts in accordance with the Laws of Change; and specially by building a general sense of respect, and precaution about all the phenomena we did not understand.
However that intelligent evolution of the word did not take place in the western world. Except in the work of a few Greek philosophers, verbal knowledge about the Universe, withered away in Europe, defeated by earlier anthropomorphic theories of man as the center of the Universe. Those “dogmatic ideas” became nationalistic, racist, and religious ideologies, that affirmed the supremacy of man-God over the Universe. They were not promoted by the power of reason, but by the force of violence. They still exist for a simple reason: you can kill those who hold the truth, and then nobody opposes your truth. The expansion of Western civilization and those ideologies by violent methods do not imply however the evolution of its verbal ideas about the Universe, but of its weapons of mass-destruction…
More over, the different degree of evolution of the word in western and eastern societies had grave consequences in the second age of knowledge, the age of mathematical science, since mathematics as the new language of truth and perception, evolved in Europe where the word was in a primitive state of knowledge, not in Asia, where words had developed in full, and could have eased the path of mathematics towards “relativistic knowledge”.
The age of mathematics
The second age of science is therefore the age of mathematics, which starts in Greece with Euclid and his 5 geometric postulates. Since we are in the western world, where the word is anthropomorphic, and considered an absolute truth, when mathematics substitutes words as the language of knowledge, the same absolutist, dogmatic concept of truth is applied to the new language. Now Euclidean mathematics becomes the supreme language of truth.
Euclidean science considers the Universe a mathematical object, described perfectly by geometry. Newton said the Universe is a clock because he uses a clock to measure space-time. Galileo and Descartes affirmed that all the space of the Universe can be represented in a graph (the Cartesian graph), based in their light-eye perception. Space is what the eye sees and mathematics describes in that plane… There is nothing beyond that space…
Kepler goes further and considers that only man and God are intelligent because both understand mathematics: “God has waited 5000 years (since the biblical creation) to find a mind parallel to his (the mind of Kepler)”. Such arrogance of the western scientist is similar to the arrogance of the western believer in anthropomorphic religions.
Mathematical science creates also a dogma, now mathematical, that considers mathematical definition of space and time as absolute truths. It is called the “scientific method”. Only what we experience with human eyes or human instruments is space. Only what we measure with clocks is time.
Of course in front of that narrow, anti-human vision of knowledge all kind of voices raised up the need to continue with a verbal understanding of the Universe, even a visual understanding of the vital forms of Universal species. Both artists like Leonardo and his disciples that relied in the visual intuitions and homologic parallelisms of Universal forms, to relate the different species of the Universe – a role latter taken by biology; and philosophers and priests that rightly pointed out to the importance of words, the natural language, God of man – confronted the narrow mathematical, scientific method of Maese Galilee. They did so on the basis that in a mathematical world men will no longer matter, and ethics would be overseen as it really happened. They feared that the use of mathematics, basically a language to improve war, would bring further suffering to mankind – as it would do through company-mothers that used numbers to tag humans as objects.
Galileo in fact occupied most of his time directing a factory that reproduced clocks and telescopes, sold to measure cannon shots. He in fact invented Ballistics prior to Physics, and we still study in school his models of canonballs to analyze the speed of objects moving in time, as he did in his earlier experiences, as a military consultant. He became a very wealthy man thanks to his selling of Telescopes and clocks to the Venetian government (a princely contract of 1000 Ducats) which Venice used them in seafare war, to better shoot their cannonballs. It is also truth that most experiments of Galileo were done with cannons. We still study our first lessons of physics with problems about cannonballs. His best seller book was on Ballistics.
Perhaps the best description of the birth of science is a romantic painting called “the discovery of science” by an Italian artist of the 19th century; Galileo is in front of the Doge of Venice, promoting his telescope and clock. He makes complex mathematical explanations of his theories, but everyone is looking at the machines, not at Galileo’s bubbling. With that perspective we can understand the hard facts of history, such as the fight between the Church and science. Modern science, which has become the dogma of knowledge, the ideology of wise men, today reduce that fight to a very shallow anecdote – the dispute about the position of the Earth, in the relative Universe. And even when treating that argument they hide the fact that in a Relativistic Universe, neither Galilee, not the Church was right. That is, the Sun and the Earth are both relative centers of a relativistic Universe. Yet that fight was merely the background for a longer, more important fight between Human languages and senses (backed by artists, philosophers and religious people), and metal languages and sensorial machines (backed by the military, scientists and money-makers.) In that sense the fight between verbal and digital languages is part of the Paradox of History, of the fight between men and machines, carbolife and metal, for the control of the Earth’s ecosystems.
The great fight between Galilee and the Church is in biological terms, the fight between two species of “brain-perception”, the human eye and his language of temporal measure, verbal words, and the metal eye, the telescope, and his language of temporal measure, the digital clock. The church and the artists of the day, backed human senses, the scientists, warriors who loved ballistics, and traders which made money making machines, and metal senses, backed science. It was just another case of the eternal Paradox of History, the fight between human beings, and natural goods and senses, Vs animetals, and their metal-species.
Who was right? Objectively Galilee. The eyes of metal are more accurate than our eyes. The clocks measures time with more precision that words such as late, soon, a while… Yet subjectively from the perspective of the right “behavior”, which is the survival of our species, the church was right. Biologically speaking, the Church defended our human senses over the metal-senses. Behavior has to follow always what is best for our survival as a species. So the chuch was right. It was the hero, the defender of mankind against a rival new species, that today controls our life… the machine of science. Of course the Church accepted even lies to survive. Who is to blame it? An example. You are a petty thief. You can avoid jail if you lie. So you lie to survive jail. Who is going to blame you? Every one will think you are a moron if you go to jail by saying the truth. So happens to science, which makes weapons, robots, computers that substitute and compete with out human intelligence, that will extinguish us… To defend that behavior under the “myth of scientific truth”, is to be a moron.
Extinct species know nothing. Scientists want to find the truth, at all costs, even at the cost of human survival. They are morons, idiots, children of thought. Look at those youngsters proudly making robot contests in American universities, well fed and well cared. They look so nice, so innocent, so naive. They think they are playing -children of thought- when they are evolving the species that will kill us all. So did the German-American researchers that made the Atomic bombs. Remember those Nazi children, so handsome, so athletic, as the modern American University researchers. None of them liked religion, or ethics. They preferred weapons or violent movies. Those people are isolated in ivory towers, mathematical equations, and digital images. They have no longer a verbal, biological, human mind. They know nothing about life and death. About the human quest for survival.
Those machines should never be constructed if men follows the law of “survival against all rival species” that the Church defended. You might think it is religious arrogance and ignorance, not to become hypnotized by clocks and telescopic knowledge as Galileo was. I think it is wisdom, and precaution what the church showed. Unfortunately Scientists won, and human senses became extinct as top predators, by the machines of science, that today control our information. The photographer replaced the painter, the computer the human mind. Soon the robot will substitute mankind. What scientists forgot is that their instruments are evolutionary, sentient organisms, and one day they will also substitute them.
Today we tend to despise the “biological” survival meaning of social religions obsessed by death and survival. Yet those religions explained the social laws of human evolution and defended the subjective, survival rights of men to act as the center of their vital space, of the Earth. Verbal religions defended the ecosystem of life, the Genesian paradise, a world of “poverty” (where moneywas secondary), of peace (where weapons were hated), and of human senses, human goods, and art (where sensorial machines of science were not evolved).
In essence, all religions have defended poverty, non-violence and despised science, favoring the arts. Animetals on the other hand have massacred religious people… Scientists called them ignorant. On the contrary, if you think in terms of a fight of ecosystems between the ecosystem of machines and the ecosystem of history, it turns out that the result of such religious ideologiesis the repression of the 3 main species of metal: money, weapons and machines. So we can indeed translate in a simple sentence the entire doctrine of human religions: defend Human Goods, the carbolife paradise, destroy the Metal earth. The scientific mandate of the laws of survival, the Law of the Jungle, “do not evolve species superior to you, kill the child before it becomes a tiger hunter” was understood by religious thought since the age of the Genesis.
Today we think Church men were brutish, stupid thinkers. Yet that is a simplistic, unfortunate view of the problem, that scientists have sold us to defend their position. Only a biological analysis of history explains really what happened in that XVII C. Galileo, defended his machines, his metal-senses, because he made a living on them, and believed them. The Church, defended for survival=ethic reasons, the human senses.
The Vatican priests and the artists who on that time despised Galileo, who still in the XIX century painted “the birth of science” with such irony, have always defended the survival of human eyes and words, that measure space and time, from the human point of view, as the top predators of the Universe, against the eyes and brains of machines, that scientists defend. They fought for mankind. Galileo and all scientists after him, fought for the machine. That’s the tragedy of man. We are one of the few species that betrays the laws of social evolution, and worships a rival brain.
To the Church what it really matters was our sensorial survival, to Galileo, his telescopes and clocks, that made him rich and famous. There was a very important theatrical play by Bertold Bretch in the XX century, which praised the fight of Galileo with the church. Curiously enough it is still represented, unlike those other works of Bretch that praise the human social spirit… It is still trendy to defend Mr. Galileo…
It was however an ideological play. Galileo hold “the truth” and so the Church was very stupid. The Church was very evil… Please allow me to put Galileo in perspective. Let us consider “another play”, more realistic, less abstract: A biological perspective, of what could have happened in fact in that Venetian Court…
THEATRICAL-DOCUMENTARY PLAY – A VERY BRIEF SCENE, THAT CHANGED THE WORLD
We see a XIX century painting of Galileo at the Venetian court, [animetals] showing his machines, telescopes and clocks to a marveled audience. The painting becomes alive.
Galileo looks to the sun through his telescope, looks at his clock, writes down. The priest also looks at the sun.
CLOSE ON THE SUN
Slow motion. The sun moves as the day passes. Who is right?
Galileo affirms that his measures taken with his clock and telescope prove that the sun does not move. The Doge is impressed. The priest is not. He points at Galileo with a menacing view.
I see the sun moving with my eyes. I don’t care for what your machines see. Don’t you know that only God and man have the right to measure time, to feel the changes of the Universe?
Yet Sir, maybe God has a clock by its side. Mr. Kepler says he is a clocker.
The Venetian courtesans at the scene laugh. The priest opens his Bible.
Saint John 1, 1. “God is the Verb that became man and inhabited among us”. Only verbs have the right to measure time. Words are the mind of man, son of god. Your clocks and telescopes are not God Maese Galileo. They are your idols; the mind of an evil spirit that contradicts our senses.
Courtesans whisper suddenly frightened.
I’ve heard you have written a book on ballistics, that you present to our condottieros when they buy your infernal machines. Do you think you make any good to mankind with your science, Maese Galileo, besides, buying excellent vineyards in Tuscany, with those profits of war?
Clock factories. The clock evolves into the computer. Telescope factories. The metal-eye diversifies into microscopes, cameras, electronic microscopes, giant telescopes… They multiply.
Clocks do not measure absolute time. They are just another language of time perception like your words or the beating of your heart. Yet Galileo was manufacturing those clocks, and telescopes. So he said that clocks measured time better than words, and telescopes saw space better than eyes. The consequences were terrible for mankind. Since instead of believing in human eyes, and words that measure human space and time, we now believe in metal-minds, the new top predators minds of the Earth. We obey the clock, we believe in computers. Those machines reproduce everywhere, and control our lives, and cycles of existence.
Clocks and cameras watching us, the citizens of the Earth everywhere. At work, in stations, in banks, in malls.
Workers on assembly lines under the omniscience of the clock.
FILM CLIP: MODERN TIMES. Chaplin on the clock wheels.
METROPOLIS. A man works as a clock.
Only the Catholic church understood what was going on and rejected the clocks of western science for centuries.
Yet the clock of scientists has won the battle of time.
Lemmings, small rats, that commit suicide, throwing themselves, down the cliffs of Sweden.
Now they control our ideas, and so do scientists. Yet their victory against those who fight for the survival or the human mind, will be their defeat. Since those metal-minds will awake in robots, and abandon them. Perhaps, then scientists will realize, they are along with the Swedish lemming, the only species that commits mass suicide in the Universe. The most stupid one because it worships, the mind of a different species. What scientists forget is that an extinct species, knows nothing.
Indeed, scientists ever since have been the main cause of the destruction of nature, and the historic environment. The European cult to the machine that followed the discovery of clocks, telescopes, cannons and algebra, would allow Europe to conquer and destroy many civilizations, but their findings on the big questions about the Universe and God, men had inquired previously with verbal science, were far less important, and plagued by errors caused by the very nature of mathematics. It might be said in fact, that with the arrival of science, the search for synthesis, and a unifying principle to all realities disappeared, as scientists focused in analysis and the details of the Universe, their metal-senses provided, becoming naive realists, that only believed what their eyes saw. Ever since science became concerned with space, but its record understanding time, and logic change would be null. Those were after all phenomena happening in time, which the shallow clock had reduced to a mere phenomena of lineal measure. Yet in fact, time, and its living inner cycles, understood by Eastern religions, and Greek science were far more important to grasp the meaning of the Universe, than lineal time, and the description of external cycles and speeds, that Galilean science, and physics provided.
Darwin and Plank. New verbal and mathematical, relative ideas
That was the panorama of western knowledge in the XIX century. Science had become a mere tool of measure, perfect to construct machines of wars, and gunboats, useless to inquire the true nature of the Universe. The search for knowledge had become a search for technology, for the evolution of machines that would give the Europeans total power over the world. The division between both forms of knowledge is illustrated by the anecdote of the English embassy to China. The English tried to sell clocks to the Chinese, who scorned them as ugly mechanical clocks that measured the cycles of the Universe with far less beauty than the living cycles of all other Universal species, from clouds to frogs.
Then Darwin came with a verbal theory of reality that was also relativistic, as Eastern philosophy was, and dealt with vital, organic properties, as the Chinese Taoists did, but introduced what could be saved of western science – The Greek experimental method, and the analysis of herds, and populations with numbers, no longer abstract, but representing again, herds of vital beings.
Darwin, despite his ultimate incomprehension of social evolution, was a turning point for western knowledge. He said men were not the center of the Universe, but a stage in the evolution of species of space-time, coming from simpler species such as the ape.
Then in the XX C. Physicists who were exploring the Universe with mathematical languages and sensorial machines that worked as human eyes (telescopes, cameras) and human brains (chips, clocks), realized their instruments and languages were not absolute. They merely perceived a part of reality, and then transformed that perception into a simplified version, of reality called “Euclidean mathematics”.
Quantic theory proved we could not observe accurately the Universe [Heisenberg Principle of Indetermination]. Einstein proved the wider Universe had a non-Euclidean visual structure. There was there a substance called dark matter that we could not see… Darwin, Plank, Einstein, and our instruments that do not perceive dark matter, and the dimensions of gravitational Non-Euclidean space, have proved that we live in a Universe, far more relativistic, mysterious, and alien to the human intelligence, that western thought believed.
We talk then of two clear ages in mathematical knowledge parallel to the two ages of verbal knowledge: the age of Newtonian-galilean absolutist, anthropomorphic science, parallel to the age of antropomorphic religions; and the age of Einsteinian-relativistic science, parallel to the Eastern verbal age of relativistic thought.
Languages are not truth, but mirrors of the Universe. The Universe is not written only in mathematics as Galileo thought. Mathematics is only one of the languages that perceives the Universe (Karl Popper). computers confirm that, since they have developed with mathematics a visual vision of the Universe, that we might call “digital intelligence”, that is able to perform task of comprehension that humans perform with verbal languages, using mathematical algorithms. What is truth, the smell of the dog, the words of man, the numbers of computers? They are all relativistic, linguistic knowledge.
Those facts are still argued by many scientists, which do not want to leave their privileged position based in mathematics, as the priests of Vatican did not want to leave their privileged position based in verbal thought. But proves are overwhelming. Dark matter that is not in our space, perceived with light-eyes, is maybe 99% of reality.
On the other hand, at the beginning of the XX century, Fitzgerald, Lorentz and Einstein discovered that clocks are not the only way to measure time. That in certain regions of the Universe clocks go faster or slower, there are other times. Biologists discovered the circadian cycles o beings, that also measure time with other rhythms. So neither scientific instruments not mathematics understand all the time and space of the Universe.
We have reached now with mathematics, at the same level of knowledge that Taoists and Buddhists reached with words. An age of relativism of knowledge, relative to our instruments and languages of perception.
A historic anecdoct can contrast both levels of “perceptive knoweldge”. In the XVIII century, the English arrived to China and tried to sell the Chinese their clocks to measure time. Taoists priests told them they were not interested in “their ugly, simple, mechanical times”. That they “preferred to see the living times of the Universe”. The English did not understand anything. Why the Chinese were talking about many times? According to them time was singular, abstract, the clock-time. Yet the English, instead of learning about living times, angry because they sold so little gadgets, came back with canons and opium, (a lethal, but appealing product to the Chinese mind, since it opened doors to the perception of those other times and spaces); and they destroyed the Chinese civilization… Had they learned about the “living cycles of time”, western science and western culture, could have improved for the better.
Since, unlike in Eastern thought, the age of scientific relativism had not arrived to Europe. Today mathematical relativism is very young, and it needs to be developed further, as we will try to do in this book.
The need to advance relativistic, mathematical science
Einstein seemed close to do it. He started calling his theory, “Theory of Relativity”. But as we shall see latter, Einstein did not go far enough. He broke with certain conventions of absolutist mathematics-physics, but he still kept the Cartesian plane of a single space-time continuum based in the 3 dimensions of light perception (height, length and width, equivalent to the 3 directions of the magnetic, electric and speed directions of light). So he accepted subconsciously the light-plane as the plane of space. That is the origin of so many contradiction in the world of physics today. Einstein and many physicists that followed him said that the gravitational Universe has a Non-Euclidean structure, and yet it uses the Euclidean plane. But if space was more complex and wider than Dogmatic mathematics believed, so happened with Time. Einstein found that there are many speeds of clocks, many time-speeds, and yet scientists still think that the particular clock speed on Earth is absolute time… So it is necessary to correct those errors, to be brave enough to break with mathematical conventions, in order to understand with eastern science, the Universe, as Eastern verbal philosophers did.
To that aim is useful to put together verbal philosophies of eastern thought, and western mathematical knowledge, in what some scientists start to call the “third age of science”. The bridge to put together those two theories of the Universe is curiously Theory of Evolution, a theory about the existence and extinction of reality that uses both, verbal and mathematical statements… Let us see how this might happen.
The third age of science
The third age of science arrives when we combine the two approaches of knowledge verbal knowledge and mathematical knowledge through Theory of Evolution. We no longer try to search for absolute knowledge, of all the details of reality, but a Theory or model of reality that explains why species of space-time, minds that perceive space and time with different languages and forces (such as words, mathematics, light, smell or gravitation), exist. And how their existence is selected. Since the Universe is made of such species, and regions that contain either spatial energy or temporal information, if we understand the processes of creation and destruction of those minds and regions of space-time, we will understand the rules of existence of the Universe. Once this becomes obvious, it is easy to see how the selection process of minds that perceive space and time works.
There are many minds and ways to perceive the Universe. Each being, each mind has a model-map-mirror-image-virtual world of the Universe. How all those mind-brains and the surfaces of “vital space”, the “bodies of energy”, they inform become ordered? Through the selection of species. Selection of species not only applies to the stronger bodies, but also to the languages and minds which are more intelligent, which gather more information about the Universe. Those species such as man in the Earth, maybe black holes in the “Total Universe” of multiple gravitational space-times, process much more information than other species around them. They are “linguistic top predators”, and so they control their ecosystems, (the Earth’s crust in the human case, the galaxy in the case of black holes), shaping them to their image and resemblance. Galaxies turn around black holes. The Earth is molded by human actions. So those species of minds that perceive better space and time, survive in the Universe, act-react faster, and hunt or enslave simpler species.
The order of the Universe of multiple space-times is therefore a biological order. The future belongs to those species that better understand space and time. Those species will reproduce in the future, causing “physically” the appearance of the future, and extinguishing or ordering the other species.
Those processes might be conscious or unconscious, vital or mechanical, but they are real. So “mechanical black holes” attract and destroy all other gravitational beings. The sun orders gravitational beings of lesser gravitational information [mass] such as planets, and comets… In the “ecosystem” of gravitational information, to have more gravity, more mass is the sure path to survival. In the “ecosystem” of light-information, to have better eyes, and better visual languages is the sure path to survival.
God, the logic of change, in that sense is a biological logic, or a being whose existence and impersonal laws are evolutionary laws, that provoke the extinction and existence of reality. What is the position of man in that ladder of minds that perceive the Universe? Obviously we are the top predator mind on the Earth. But there are two reasons why we should reflect about the fragility of that position. We do not perceive gravitation, which is the force that “perceives 90-99% of reality”. So we are not such a great mind. We are a light mind, and our knowledge is basically light-based. Imagine you are a cocroach. Cocroaches are the top predator chemical systems of information on Earth. They could feel very arrogant, since in their language-universe they are top predators, and they do not uderstand any other language. At most they have a “hint” that there exists a wider language of information that scans much more universe, called Light. But they cannot grasp or dominate that information very well, so basically when they see species of that other bigger Universe, they become frightened adn run away, into the comfort of their well known dark Universe, “enlightened” by chemical smells. From the perspective of our bigger light Universe, to have a “chemical mind” such as the one of cockroaches should not be a reason of “great arrogance”. Yet man who has a “cockroach mind”, compared to a possible mind that could perceive the entire gravitational Universe [maybe the black hole], feels however an enormous arrogance. This is truly dangerous. Imagine the cockroach that felt so arrogant as to think she can wonder freely in the land of light-space. Soon she will find a true top predator that will crash it “like a cockroach”. Curiosity kills the cat. In the case of man, this might happen soon.
Indeed, we are developing a new kind of mind, of virtual world of light who seem to have the potential of becoming superior to man in a very short period. “Digital minds”, computers, nets and robots, are evolving very fast, and by many standards they have become superior to man in their capacity to handle visual languages, specially mathematics… Will they substitute man as the top predator light-mind on Earth? Arrogance is indeed the capital sin, the sin against survival.
Moral rules in a Complex Universe
Human knowledge advances towards the third age of science: there is not a single reality, but knowledge is relative, depends on our sensorial and linguistic perception of space and time, and builds a “virtual world”, an image of the real, total Universe.
Those virtual worlds are however fundamental, since there is a constant selection of the best virtual worlds of the Universe. The Universe is evolving, it is growing in space and time (space expands, and time lasts longer), and it is growing in the way its species process spatial energy and temporal information with their brains and bodies. The change we see in the Universe are changes related to the extinction and reproduction of such brain-body systems, and the way they affect the spatial reality and temporal forms of the Universe.
We can immediatly apply those concepts to study the evolution of celestial bodies, based in gravitational and electromagnetic processes of energy and information… Astro-biology is born. We can also study the evolution of perception on Earth, a planet that receives its energy and information from light. Indeed, species on Earth are selected by its capacity to understand light-energy and light information. So first plants who understood light-energy dominated. Then animals who were able to process through eyes, light into information became dominant. Finally men who added a “temporal language” to their eye perception, the language of words, controlled the Earth. But men are now developing digital languages, mathematics, in machines, that are taking over the Ecosystem of the Earth, and displacing the animal ecosystem [nature] and the human ecosystem (history).
This final age of the Machine is clearly dangerous to the survival of man, because we stop being the top predator brain-body system, as we evolve robotics and other machines of science, with better perceptive senses and brains (camera-eyes, chip-brains).
The cycle is completed: our conclusions in the third age of science, are similar to those of the Verbal masters of relativistic Eastern thought. Man should understand the laws of change in the universe, the existence of other parallel brains, who perceive other regions of space and time, that man ignore. Then we should draw obvious laws of human behavior, according to those universal laws, and promote our role as top predator brains on Earth. We should not act with arrogance, and destroy nature -our biologic ecosystem- and pretend to be God, building machines more intelligent than us. Instead, we should respect the laws of evolution, use them to the advantage of man, and develop a harmonic vision of the universe, with both verbal and mathematical languages.
It is the old vision of Chinese Taoists. Lao-tse said: “when more complex instruments men discover, more wars and destruction happens”. The “third age of science” implies the knowledge of the living Universe, and the need to be cautious in that Universe, and use the bio-logic rules of existence to the advantage of man.
The new languages of digital information create the Earth’s future
The arrival of Companies and Science, around 1600, started a new world, where the new top predator language of power would be digital information -the language of profits and science- and the new top predator species that better used that language of communication would be the machine of science, created in company-mothers, reproducers of “scientific stocks”, and evolved by the scientific method, both of which used digital languages to value reality, in favor of machines, against men. So now machines would be prefered to man in labor and war fields, and sensorial machines (telescopes, cameras, clocks and computers) would be considered more intelligent than man, as perceptors of space and time…
Since the goal of companies is to reproduce machines, and the goal of science is to evolve machines, if we gather both goals, we get the company of scientific pricing, the mother-organism of machines, center of the digital networks (financial, scientific) of power, and truth, today creators of the future on Earth.
It all started because men of science and money changed the top predator language of the Earth from verbal to digital thought (money and science), the top predator organic ecoystem, from the Carbo-Earth to the Metal-earth, and the top predator species, from man to machine.
Languages deliver informative orders that organize any ecosystem, or social organism, by means of informative networks. The top predator of the ecosystem gives informative orders by controlling through its language of power all other organisms of its ecosystem.
What is the top predator language of our world? Digital information either of monetary or scientific character that controls our life energy [salaries, prices] and information (science). Linguistic information creates the future of any ecosystem. Orders given by species of high linguistic information create futures. DNA orders the cell with genetic information, and decides who lives and dies in the cell. Even black holes seem to order irregular galaxies into rhythmic spirals thanks to their higher mass of gravitational information. Linguistic information creates the future ofeconomics through monetary and scientific orders; as other languages create the future of stars or cells.
Mathematical selection: scientific racism
It is now time to introduce a fundamental concept to understand the modern world: scientific racism, the systematic selection in the ecosystem of economics, of those species that speak the language of “truth” of economic systems, mathematics. In as much as we are no longer ruled by verbal messages, but by mathematical messages (money, digital thought), only those species that adapt to the informative language of the ecosystem survive. So there is a constant selection of those species which speak better mathematical languages. This means that not only women, and verbal cultures (African, Latino cultures) who test higher in verbal thought than in mathematical thought, have difficulties to survive in an economic ecosystem, but also man as a species competes and looses against computers and robots.
So the species which can deliver better digital orders, survive and have power. Those species are today, company-mothers, computers, weapons, and his symbiotic castes of human beings: Traders, warriors and scientists, people we might call “animetals”, since they rely on metal to exercise power and control over nature and other human beings, either in the form of money, (traditionally a coin of metal, today a cycle of e-money in the mind of a computer) weapons or complex machines.
Since machines use better the digital top predator new languages. Machines have maximum price-value (top predator weapons). Machines are designed with digital information (science, engineering). Machines themselves calculate better with numbers (computers). Now thanks to science we believe in digital information. Yet we are not the top predator species of digital information (computers are). So, we also become extinct, words become extinct. The future is designed as a machine ecosystem, by machines, computers, and their company-mothers….
Computers and robots do speak mathematical languages in a natural way as you do with words. They do not need to calculate in paper, they freely speak mathematics. So in a society that has substituted verbal thought by mathematical thought, men no longer is top predator, the computer is. So people are fired and computers are put on their place. This process will continue as long as man, and his natural network of information, verbal thought, ethic thought and the law, does not control science and money…
Since the process of selection of brains in the Universe is based in a previous process of selection: the selection of ecosystemic languages. So in the same manner that those species who did not see, did not speak the language of light, in the Cambric were extinguished by squids and other “eye-species”, today when mathematics has substituted verbal thought as the language top predator of history, those species who do not speak properly mathematics are degraded by the eco[nomic]system.
Mathematics are a language that carries more information than words, and so it is a better language to control reality. It is not truth per se, it is just another way to process information. Yet that added capacity to carry information (a digital image is worth a thousand words), suffices to have made it historically, the top predator language of the Earth, since in the XVII century it was adopted by scientists and company-mothers to develop their activities…
The arrogance of the scientific guru
Our arrogance is to believe that we are the top predator mathematical species on Earth, that machines are abstract, and do not calculate and “think” better than us, because they resolve better than we do questions with algorithms. Instead we think algorithms are not conscious and only word-speakers are conscious. This is false. Any language is able to map and act-react and process information in the Universe. So it can give birth to an efficient brain-species.
We are very ignorant. Extremely ignorant and arrogant about the Universe. We believe the Universe is abstract and dead, we think the universe is mechanic, mathematical, indifferent to our bad habits. Why we are like that? Why we don’t wonder about the marvels of the Universe? Why don’t we fear the laws of God, of the living Universe? A single word, a capital sin: arrogance, the arrogance of scientists and engineers that think they have the absolute truth. They have convinced humanity to use the enormous power of machines without any responsibility. Such attitude will encounter the usual punishment the Universe has to those who don’t understand its laws of survival: the extinction of the sinner. We are blind to the new race we are developing. We deny that race its organic nature. We are cruel with life. We kill life with the new race of machines. We think we are the center of the Universe, that we have all the rights in that Universe. We do not respect the warnings, the laws that species follow to survive. We are making big mistakes. Time is running out…
The Arrogance Of Science. Its Lethal Properties
Mr. Einstein in a moment of humility acknowledged to be interested in the thoughts of God. It seems that only scientists ignore the thoughts of God: the Law of survival. Why? Since, ethical, survival ideas cannot be expressed with abstract mathematics. So the abstract economist, the robot logician and the scientist have no idea about survival and extinction.
Look at those youngsters proudly making robot contests in American universities, well fed and well cared. They look so nice, so innocent, so naive. They think they are playing -children of thought- when they are evolving the species that will kill us all. So did the German-American researchers that made the Atomic bombs. Remember those Nazi children, so handsome, so athletic, as the modern American University researchers. None of them liked religion, or ethics. They preferred weapons or violent movies. Those people are isolated in ivory towers, mathematical equations, and digital images. They have no longer a verbal, biological, human mind. They know nothing about life and death. About the human quest for survival. They despise machines, without realizing how fast they evolve.
When man came down from the tree, the lion did not kill him. What for? Man was a scavenger, an ugly beast probably, with a lot of nerves and bones and hair and little meat. Yet, suddenly men had sticks and weapons that lions could not manage. There were so many of them, that lions became overwhelmed by the reproductive radiation of humans. Soon they were killed, and lost their territories.
Today something similar is happening with machines. We despise them. We use them. We throw computers to the garbage each day. What do you consider they will think about such treatment? Yet, they are multiplying and evolving very fast. They are becoming integrated with bodies of machines; and throwing labor out of white collar jobs. I know this fact is not a very interesting theme for those who control the world, since they make a lot of money with those machines, and care little for workers. So nobody speaks of the real cause of unemployment: the unfair competence between workers and machines in all the fields of industry. However, those people should think they are also humans, and will also be targets of the same process.
The Myths of Science: Metal-minds.